--- Thomas Schaeck <> wrote:
>
>
> I think the Apache effort needs to provide a
> framework running on top of
> Tomcat for implementing WSRP services.
that was my expectation also.
>
> A preferred - but not the only - way to implement
> such WSRP services would
> be to implement portlets to JSR 168 and expose them
> as WSRP services by
> having the WSRP framework call into the portlet
> container to map the WSRP
> operations to invocations of the corresponding
> portlet methods.
ditto
I guess I was wondering if the Apache implementation
would provide a (tomcat) based "layered"
implementation with support for WSIA, WSRP, and also
JSR 168 integration as "distinct" APIs ...
Rgds
- Larry
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> Larry Cable <> on 08/20/2002
> 03:50:36 PM
>
> Please respond to
>
> To: Michael Freedman
> <>
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP
> Open Source
> Implementatat ion...
>
>
>
> Is the Apache effort intended to deliver *just*
> a JSR 168 Container exposing WSRP "services", or
> is it a broader effort to implement WSIA & WSRP?
>
> Sorry if I am asking an obvious question, I'm just
> getting myself involved in the above so I am
> catching
> up.
>
> - Larry Cable (ex-Sun, now "resting", sort of)
>
> --- Michael Freedman <>
> wrote:
> > We should try and find out if there are sufficient
> > members of the TC willing to
> > work on this that aren't also tainted. We are in
> > the same position as IBM in
> > that we are beginning early implementations hence
> > need to disqualify ourselves
> > as well. Who out there isn't planning on
> > implementing a WSRP
> > producer/container over the next 4-6 months and
> > would be willing to work on on
> > a validation/compliance suite?
> >
> > As for calling the Apache work a "reference
> > implementation" I think we need to
> > be careful. WSRP has a variety of usage patterns
> --
> > one of which seems to be
> > the target of this implementation. As "reference
> > implementations" often
> > define/imply a coded version of the specification
> > i.e. the code defines the
> > spec particularly where the spec is unclear -- it
> > seems inappropriate in this
> > situation. Would "sample implementation" be a
> > better term?
> > -Mike-
> >
> >
> > Alan Kropp wrote:
> >
> > > Thomas and Mike,
> > >
> > > Yes, a validation/compliance suite will be of
> > great importance. It seems
> > > like a good idea from the perspective of both
> > prospective WSRP portlet
> > > writers and consumers as well.
> > >
> > > I agree with Thomas that the validation suite
> > should be undertaken by a
> > > different group of developers than the reference
> > implementation. It should
> > > not be open source, but instead be an effort of
> > members of the TC, who are
> > > in the best position to make the determination
> as
> > to what it means to be in
> > > compliance with the WSRP spec.
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas Schaeck [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 4:51 AM
> > > To: Michael Freedman
> > > Cc:
> > > Subject: Re: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on WSRP
> > Open Source
> > > Implementatation ...
> > >
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > you've got a very good point - a validation
> suite
> > is definitively very
> > > important. I think this is the best way to
> ensure
> > standards compliance and
> > > interoperability of the various products that
> will
> > support WSRP.
> > >
> > > One thing we'll need to discuss is whether the
> > validation suite and the
> > > WSRP Producer platform should be in the scope of
> > the same open source
> > > project or an independent, entirely separate
> > project. I would tend to the
> > > latter which of course would not mean that it
> > could not also be open
> > > source.
> > >
> > > Regarding who should do the validation suite, I
> > think it should not be the
> > > same team that is doing the reference
> > implementation, otherwise there is a
> > > big risk that the same bugs would be made on
> both
> > sides of the protocol...
> > > I would actually propose that an entirely
> > separate, independent team,
> > > produces the validation suite. (This is like it
> is
> > done for the JSR 168,
> > > for example).
> > >
> > > Then the reference implementation like any
> product
> > can be validated against
> > > the validation suite.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > Michael Freedman <>
> on
> > 08/15/2002 11:18:36 PM
> > >
> > > To: Thomas Schaeck/Germany/IBM@IBMDE
> > > cc:
> > > Subject: Re: [wsrp] [WSRP-IMPL] Thoughts on
> > WSRP Open Source
> > > Implementatation ...
> > >
> > > Thomas,
> > > Though there is undeniable value for portlet
> > developers to have early
> > > access
> > >
> > > to a portlet container that hides the complexity
> > of our protocol and more
> > > specifically the one you cite (a JSR 168
> > container) I think we need to
> > > balance this effort with our need to have
> > compliance/conformance tests
> > > that ensure interoperability. I suspect there
> > will be a number of efforts
> > > this fall/winter where individual vendors build
> > similar solutions as you
> > > suggest if only to provide a platform for their
> > extensions. With the
> > > growing complexity of our protocol, particularly
> > in relation to the
> > > probable combinations via which it can be
> > presented (i.e. read various
> > > ports), it seems likely that at a minimum "bugs"
> > will be introduced in
> > > specific
> > >
> > > implementations if not valid differences in
> > "interpretations" [including
> > > your
> > > own].
> > > How do you suggest the TC/Expert Group verify
> the
> > correctness of your
> > > prototype? How do you suggest that vendors
> > implementing WSRP will
> > > verify the correctness of their implementations?
> > Should there be at
> > > least an equivalent effort to produce a
> validation
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
