A New SCA Testing TC?

Folks,

Bob's points below really go into the
area of the responses that we owe Microsoft and Siemens

relating to their public review comments
on the Assembly spec.

It is my belief that the Assembly tests
have been structured in such a way that they are adaptable

to a any new future implementation type,
although I agree that the TestCases document needs to

be more explicit and normative about
which parts of the testcases can be changed and what 

changes are allowed.

The problem remains however, about how
we can ensure that a vendor implementing a new

implementation type and wanting to claim
conformance for their runtime using that implementation

type satisfies 2 key requirements:

a) Have a publicly available version
of the test suite written in the new implementation type,

which can be used by all and which would
be subject to scrutiny for the validity of the translation 

of the testcases.

b) Have a publicly available document
describing the new implementation type which at a 

minimum describes the mapping from implementation
type artifacts to the componentType

when the implementation artifact is
used as the implementation of an SCA Component.

So far, the only route we have of guaranteeing
both of these requirements is to require that

the new implementation language is described
by a specification developed under the

aegis of an OASIS TC.

I am interested to hear if there some
alternatives available which will provide these requirements

while allowing some alternative approach
to the development and publishing of the materials.

I don't think that a "Testing TC"
affects these questions much at all.  I tend to agree with Bob that

the value of a separate Testing TC is
questionable and there remains an issue relating to the

implementation type specific tests that
an impl language TC may want to require as part of the

conformance requirements for their spec.
 To me, these tests seem to naturally belong to the

language TC itself.  Having a separate
TC with different membership seems like a recipe for

conflict and/or missing testcases....

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  

Email:  

From:
Bob Freund <>

To:


Cc:
OASIS Assembly Test <>,
OASIS Policy <>, OASIS Bindings <>,
OASIS Java <>, OASIS BPEL <>,
OASIS CPP <>

Date:
16/07/2009 22:03

Subject:
Re: [sca-policy] A New SCA Testing TC?

Ashok,

I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that it ought to be possible
 

for a new language to be brought in to the family, but I am concerned  

about creating a centralized testing TC.

One main reason is that it is unclear how long such a TC would be  

staffed or its members remain interested.  A new language could come
 

along years from now.

IMO it would be better to describe the language interface tests in a  

language independent manner so that they could be implemented in  

whatever language as may arise in the future.

The problem is the determination of the correct implementation of  

those "meta" tests.  Perhaps there is some technical solution,
but it  

escapes my limited imagination.

an alternate approach might be that the implementors might self- 

certify and be required to publish the tests used as well as the  

results before being able to claim conformance.  The customer's might
 

them be able to judge for themselves the degree of rigor used and thus
 

the quality of the self-certification.

-bob

On Jul 15, 2009, at 4:42 PM, ashok malhotra wrote:

> If you have been following the Assembly Testing work, you know that
 

> the Assembly Test Cases are written in Java.

> Mike is now preparing a BPEL version.

>

> Clearly, the Java test cases test the Java C&I to some extent
and  

> Bryan has raised an issue that asks whether the Assembly and Java
 

> tests should be more cleanly separated, but there are  

> complications.  The Assembly tests need some C&I to test
and some  

> duplication cannot be prevented.  Also, if the Assembly tests
and  

> the language tests were separated, then who adjudicate differences
 

> of opinion and duplication?  Further, if the Assembly tests were
 

> shorn of any language C&I, someone could come along, pass only
the  

> Assembly, Policy and Bindings tests and claim SCA compliance.

>

> So, I'm suggesting we consider forming a new TC that would be  

> responsible for all SCA Testing.

> Before you go "Aaargh!  Not another TC!", please consider
the  

> advantages:

>

> 1. Bryan's issue would be closed as there would be only a single TC
 

> and it would write and manage all the tests, some

> of which would, of course, cover Assembly and one or more language
 

> C&Is.   In fact, thinking about it, many of the tests

> would cover some Assembly features, some Policy, a binding and some
 

> C&I.

>

> 2.. If all the tests were in a single TC there would be no need for
 

> someone else to settle disputes.

>

> 3. If an outside party were to come and claim SCA compliance, the
 

> Testing TC would have the authority to vet their

> tests and say 'yay' or 'nay'.  Or to enforce which tests they
should  

> run.

>

> What do people think?

> -- 

> All the best, Ashok

>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
at:

> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU