In general I like this. For a)
I would either replace"validate" with "inspect" or
add "inspect" tot he list. The key is that it must be possible
to examine the source materials for the implementation type-specific materials
in addition to executing the tests..
Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address:
"Martin Chapman"
<>
07/17/2009 08:59 AM
To
"'Mike Edwards'" <>,
"'OASIS Assembly'" <>
cc
Subject
RE: [sca-assembly] A New SCA Testing
TC?
On the MS/Siemens issue,
how about we change the conformance requirements in the assembly spec to
the effect of a) and b) in your email.
Currently we say in Section
13.2
…
3.The implementation
MUST support and comply with at least one of the OpenCSA Member Section
adopted implementation types.
How about replacing this with (something
like):
3. The implementation
MUST support and comply with a publically available implementation type.
A publically available implementation type MUST:
a) Have a publicly available
version of the test suite written in the implementation type, available
for any party to download, validate and execute
b) Have a publicly available
document(s) describing the 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.
Note that OpenSCA Member
Section adopted implementation types fulfill these requirements.
From: Mike Edwards [mailto:]
Sent: 17 July 2009 10:01
To: OASIS Assembly
Subject: [sca-assembly] 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
