Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

959Re: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some questions/observations re: BDG)

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    Apr 1, 2001
      Sure. I thought we were doing tests..

      What other tests should we do?

      What is "the namespace resolution?"

      Dave


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Matt Long" <mlong@...>
      To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 7:38 PM
      Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some
      questions/observations re: BDG)


      > Dave,
      >
      > The point is this implementations are not conforming. The question begs
      > itself as to the 80/20 rule. The "80 AND the "20" has to be the same
      across
      > the board. "Tested" software is just that, it conforms to the test. The
      QC
      > is a determinant of the provisions of the test. The community is missing
      > important details, like the namespace resolution. The problem is the test
      > data is incomplete and nonconclusive. It is an everyone's best interest
      to
      > get the required data such that the varability matrix can be developed.
      > THEN the BDG carries much credibility. BTW, this is a bunch of work and
      > time. You game?
      >
      > -Matt
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
      > > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 9:15 PM
      > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some
      > > questions/observations re: BDG)
      > >
      > >
      > > I'm baffled.
      > >
      > > I guess my point is this.
      > >
      > > My software is scriptable over the Internet.
      > >
      > > If you want to make your software scriptable over the
      > > Internet that would
      > > make me happy.
      > >
      > > What's so complicated about that?
      > >
      > > Dave
      > >
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Matt Long" <mlong@...>
      > > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 7:04 PM
      > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some
      > > questions/observations re: BDG)
      > >
      > >
      > > > Dave,
      > > >
      > > > The BDG makes no reference to the resolution of namespaces and
      > > specifically
      > > > to the documented problem of resolving a namespace in an
      > > attribute value.
      > > > The problem has reared it's head in all but one of the
      > > applications I can
      > > > test. In order to be accurate in the BDG it is my
      > > professional opinion
      > > that
      > > > full scale scripted testing must be done in order to work
      > > out the details.
      > > > Until we have a variability matrix against all the
      > > applications we don't
      > > > *know* (literal sense of the word) all the specific
      > > details. And yes I'm
      > > > being anal about this because it is important. I have an
      > > estimate on man
      > > > hours for this and it is huge. Working together is still
      > > *work*, we just
      > > > scaled it ;-).
      > > >
      > > > -Matt
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
      > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 8:43 PM
      > > > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG
      > > (was : some
      > > > > questions/observations re: BDG)
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > What's the right answer?
      > > > >
      > > > > I feel like this is a final exam, either I get it right
      > > or I don't. My
      > > > > problem is that I don't have a clue about the software you're
      > > > > doing. So I
      > > > > don't know what you or others would like me to do.
      > > > >
      > > > > I also wish this question had come up about 3 days ago. ;->
      > > > >
      > > > > Dave
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > From: <keithba@...>
      > > > > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 6:39 PM
      > > > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some
      > > > > questions/observations re: BDG)
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > > I'm not sure I feel well enough to do that tonight, but
      > > > > will try, but
      > > > > > no promises. Also, it will be for nought if I don't
      > > know the answer
      > > > > > to my question:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > When the BDG says to do X, does it mean you don't have
      > > to accept Y
      > > > > > (where Y is perfectly acceptible SOAP, such as a datatype not
      > > > > > mentioned in the BDG)?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Corrolary: Will a BDG implementation correctly fault when
      > > > > sent a SOAP
      > > > > > Header it doesn't understand?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In soapbuilders@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
      > > > > > > OK, thanks for the response, sorry to hear you're not
      > > > > feeling well.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Maybe we could approach it this way.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 1. Could you put a bit of time this evening into a
      > > very careful
      > > > > > read of the
      > > > > > > BDG, and see if you see any reason that it's not
      > > conforming to the
      > > > > > SOAP 1.1
      > > > > > > specification.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 2. My understanding is that all Microsoft SOAP
      > > > > implementations will
      > > > > > conform
      > > > > > > to the SOAP 1.1 spec.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > If you take 1 and 2 together, then we know that we will have
      > > > > > interop betw
      > > > > > > software that implements BDG and Microsoft products.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > So if you could help with #1, I'd sleep better
      > > tonight, and then I
      > > > > > can put
      > > > > > > my mind to work on teaching our script writer friends
      > > how to do
      > > > > > cool stuff
      > > > > > > NEXT WEEK with this stuff.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > That's the real reason we're doing this. I'm sure Microsoft is
      > > > > > approaching
      > > > > > > it the same way. What we're doing here is is the
      > > > > necessary overhead
      > > > > > work,
      > > > > > > the fun really starts when the users' eyes start
      > > lighting up with
      > > > > > the new
      > > > > > > power and choice we're giving them.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I honestly believe this will revitalize the economy, make
      > > > > Microsoft
      > > > > > (and
      > > > > > > UserLand) stock prices soar, and people will create
      > > apps that we
      > > > > > can't dream
      > > > > > > of today.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Dave
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > > > From: <keithba@m...>
      > > > > > > To: <soapbuilders@y...>
      > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 6:23 PM
      > > > > > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG
      > > (was : some
      > > > > > > questions/observations re: BDG)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I've been thinking this one over quite a bit. I'm not
      > > > > feeling well
      > > > > > > > this weekend, so my thinking is even slower than usual.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Technically speaking, I just don't know. Partly
      > > because I don't
      > > > > > know
      > > > > > > > the other MS implementations as well as I know my
      > > own. I need to
      > > > > > do
      > > > > > > > some more analysis here. When the BDG says to do X,
      > > does it mean
      > > > > > you
      > > > > > > > don't have to accept Y? (For instance, if I send a
      > > datatype not
      > > > > > > > listed, will the other implementation crack under what is
      > > > > > otherwise
      > > > > > > > perfectly acceptable SOAP?)
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > But, I think it is compelling to also ask if the
      > > BDG is enough
      > > > > > for a
      > > > > > > > SOAP stacks implementors. I feel that entering the SOAP game
      > > > > > should
      > > > > > > > allow for a wide variety of entrances, from very simple
      > > > > stacks to
      > > > > > > > very complex stacks. However, my fear is that if
      > > someone only
      > > > > > > > implements the BDG, and doesn't ever implement beyond
      > > > > that level,
      > > > > > > > they will left out of all the fun stuff that comes
      > > later, like
      > > > > > > > finding concrete implementations of abstract WSDL
      > > > > bindings within
      > > > > > > > UDDI, or understanding SOAP Headers that allow for
      > > > > contextual flow
      > > > > > > > and transaction handling. Or that your stack won't
      > > be adopted by
      > > > > > > > Company X because they need to interop with Company Y, and
      > > > > > Company Y
      > > > > > > > required something outside of what is described in the BDG.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Lastly, I'm not sure that the BDG will actually get
      > > us all to
      > > > > > interop
      > > > > > > > much more quickly than without the BDG. My experience
      > > > > with interop
      > > > > > > > has been that interop isn't as much a problem of
      > > spec fuzziness
      > > > > > > > (although that is surely one roadblock), but one of
      > > just plain
      > > > > > > > testing. However, I could be very wrong on this
      > > point. Also, at
      > > > > > the
      > > > > > > > very least, the process of creating the BDG has
      > > (I'm sure) been
      > > > > > very
      > > > > > > > illuminating and educational for all involved, and
      > > illumination
      > > > > > and
      > > > > > > > learning is never a bad thing.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Just my 2 cents.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > --- In soapbuilders@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
      > > > > > > > > Coool.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Thanks for responding.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Let me ask a more direct and clear question.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Do you forsee any problems with apps that only do the
      > > > > subset of
      > > > > > > > SOAP 1.1
      > > > > > > > > described in the BDG interoperating with Microsoft's SOAP
      > > > > > > > implementations?
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > If so, what are the problems, and how can we remedy them?
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Dave
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > > > > > > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > > > > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Show all 48 messages in this topic