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

Round IV Action Items

Expand Messages
  • Arun Gupta
    Going through the Round IV F2F minutes [1], our understanding (and others may share it as well) has been that all the features discussed and agreed upon in the
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 29, 2002
      Going through the Round IV F2F minutes [1], our understanding (and
      others may share it as well) has been that all the features discussed
      and agreed upon in the F2F will be used as the baseline for the
      Round IV set of tests. Recently, there have been some vendors
      publishing DIME endpoints. Also there are other proposals (on SOAP
      1.2 HTTP/GET support) under discussion. So I have a few questions
      on this from the Round V F2F point of view. This is to initiate the
      process for setting agenda for the Round V F2F in October.

      In the Round V F2F, are we still going to focus on the interop
      testing for items discussed in the Round IV F2F meeting? If yes,
      it will be good to agree on the test cases for these so that
      vendors can implement support for these items before the Round V.
      Also, it will be a good idea to initiate this discussion now to
      prepare for the Round V F2F. Many of us have action items from the
      round IV F2F. Need to check on those action items.

      Also in our opinion, it is a good idea to discuss DIME and
      SOAP 1.2 HTTP/GET feature interop testing in the Round V F2F.
      There is enough to be discussed here. For example, WSDL binding
      for SOAP 1.2 and DIME endpoints is largely undefined except a few
      informal proposals. Discussion in the F2F meeting will help us
      to work out such missing details and agree about these details
      and interop tests. Otherwise, we get into a subsetted interop
      testing (where a few vendors support some features while others
      don't), which is clearly not good from the SOAP interoperability
      goal.

      Given this, please suggest agenda items for the next F2F. I can
      start collating these as part of the proposed agenda and post it
      to the SOAPBuilders mailing list.

      [1]: http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap

      Thanks,
      -Arun

      --
      =============================================
      There is only one me, I must live myself!
      There is only one today, I must live itself!
      =============================================
      http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
      =============================================
    • Bob Cunnings
      Hello, Besides: -- SOAP 1.2, including Web Method Feature -- Attachments, DIME and SwA for sure, how about considering tests of intermediary processing,
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 29, 2002
        Hello,

        Besides:

        -- SOAP 1.2, including "Web Method Feature"
        -- Attachments, DIME and SwA

        for sure, how about considering tests of intermediary processing, which is a
        core SOAP feature? Perhaps WS-Routing could be used as the basis of testing,
        perhaps routing the familiar "echoXXX" messages through intermediaries.
        Alternatively, some other SOAP extension could be contrived as part of the
        test definition. I'd be happy to create the test cases, supporting docs,
        etc. if there is any interest.

        RC

        > Going through the Round IV F2F minutes [1], our understanding (and
        > others may share it as well) has been that all the features discussed
        > and agreed upon in the F2F will be used as the baseline for the
        > Round IV set of tests. Recently, there have been some vendors
        > publishing DIME endpoints. Also there are other proposals (on SOAP
        > 1.2 HTTP/GET support) under discussion. So I have a few questions
        > on this from the Round V F2F point of view. This is to initiate the
        > process for setting agenda for the Round V F2F in October.
        >
        > In the Round V F2F, are we still going to focus on the interop
        > testing for items discussed in the Round IV F2F meeting? If yes,
        > it will be good to agree on the test cases for these so that
        > vendors can implement support for these items before the Round V.
        > Also, it will be a good idea to initiate this discussion now to
        > prepare for the Round V F2F. Many of us have action items from the
        > round IV F2F. Need to check on those action items.
        >
        > Also in our opinion, it is a good idea to discuss DIME and
        > SOAP 1.2 HTTP/GET feature interop testing in the Round V F2F.
        > There is enough to be discussed here. For example, WSDL binding
        > for SOAP 1.2 and DIME endpoints is largely undefined except a few
        > informal proposals. Discussion in the F2F meeting will help us
        > to work out such missing details and agree about these details
        > and interop tests. Otherwise, we get into a subsetted interop
        > testing (where a few vendors support some features while others
        > don't), which is clearly not good from the SOAP interoperability
        > goal.
        >
        > Given this, please suggest agenda items for the next F2F. I can
        > start collating these as part of the proposed agenda and post it
        > to the SOAPBuilders mailing list.
        >
        > [1]: http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap
        >
        > Thanks,
        > -Arun
        >
        > --
        > =============================================
        > There is only one me, I must live myself!
        > There is only one today, I must live itself!
        > =============================================
        > http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
        > =============================================
      • Matt Long
        All, I do tend to think that interop testing is better managed, if the roadmap of what is to be tested is agreed to prior to creation of tests and proposals
        Message 3 of 16 , Jul 30, 2002
          All,

          I do tend to think that interop testing is better managed, if the
          'roadmap' of what is to be tested is agreed to prior to creation of
          tests and proposals thereof. I believe that the ad hoc-ness of the
          current 'procedure' does not lend itself moving the ever growing
          community toward greater interop in the leanest manner (imho).

          Proposal:

          1) Conference call to determine what is to be tested.
          a) This should be a manageable list of items that can be
          completed which the scope of the F2F.
          2) Ad Hoc build of test proposals.


          Opinions...

          -Matt Long
          Phalanx Systems, LLC





          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Bob Cunnings [mailto:cunnings@...]
          > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:13 PM
          > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Round IV Action Items
          >
          > Hello,
          >
          > Besides:
          >
          > -- SOAP 1.2, including "Web Method Feature"
          > -- Attachments, DIME and SwA
          >
          > for sure, how about considering tests of intermediary processing,
          which is
          > a
          > core SOAP feature? Perhaps WS-Routing could be used as the basis of
          > testing,
          > perhaps routing the familiar "echoXXX" messages through
          intermediaries.
          > Alternatively, some other SOAP extension could be contrived as part of
          the
          > test definition. I'd be happy to create the test cases, supporting
          docs,
          > etc. if there is any interest.
          >
          > RC
          >
          > > Going through the Round IV F2F minutes [1], our understanding (and
          > > others may share it as well) has been that all the features
          discussed
          > > and agreed upon in the F2F will be used as the baseline for the
          > > Round IV set of tests. Recently, there have been some vendors
          > > publishing DIME endpoints. Also there are other proposals (on SOAP
          > > 1.2 HTTP/GET support) under discussion. So I have a few questions
          > > on this from the Round V F2F point of view. This is to initiate the
          > > process for setting agenda for the Round V F2F in October.
          > >
          > > In the Round V F2F, are we still going to focus on the interop
          > > testing for items discussed in the Round IV F2F meeting? If yes,
          > > it will be good to agree on the test cases for these so that
          > > vendors can implement support for these items before the Round V.
          > > Also, it will be a good idea to initiate this discussion now to
          > > prepare for the Round V F2F. Many of us have action items from the
          > > round IV F2F. Need to check on those action items.
          > >
          > > Also in our opinion, it is a good idea to discuss DIME and
          > > SOAP 1.2 HTTP/GET feature interop testing in the Round V F2F.
          > > There is enough to be discussed here. For example, WSDL binding
          > > for SOAP 1.2 and DIME endpoints is largely undefined except a few
          > > informal proposals. Discussion in the F2F meeting will help us
          > > to work out such missing details and agree about these details
          > > and interop tests. Otherwise, we get into a subsetted interop
          > > testing (where a few vendors support some features while others
          > > don't), which is clearly not good from the SOAP interoperability
          > > goal.
          > >
          > > Given this, please suggest agenda items for the next F2F. I can
          > > start collating these as part of the proposed agenda and post it
          > > to the SOAPBuilders mailing list.
          > >
          > > [1]: http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap
          > >
          > > Thanks,
          > > -Arun
          > >
          > > --
          > > =============================================
          > > There is only one me, I must live myself!
          > > There is only one today, I must live itself!
          > > =============================================
          > > http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
          > > =============================================
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >
          > -----------------------------------------------------------------
          > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
          > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
          >
          > 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/
          >
        • Simon Fell
          A roadmap for the next F2F was hashed out at the last one, see the bottom of http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html Hopefully those people that signed up
          Message 4 of 16 , Jul 30, 2002
            A roadmap for the next F2F was hashed out at the last one, see the
            bottom of http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html

            Hopefully those people that signed up for the various bits, will step
            up to the plate with the relevant bits RSN.

            Cheers
            Simon
            www.pocketsoap.com

            On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:39:46 -0500, in ws you wrote:

            >All,
            >
            >I do tend to think that interop testing is better managed, if the
            >'roadmap' of what is to be tested is agreed to prior to creation of
            >tests and proposals thereof. I believe that the ad hoc-ness of the
            >current 'procedure' does not lend itself moving the ever growing
            >community toward greater interop in the leanest manner (imho).
            >
            >Proposal:
            >
            >1) Conference call to determine what is to be tested.
            > a) This should be a manageable list of items that can be
            >completed which the scope of the F2F.
            >2) Ad Hoc build of test proposals.
            >
            >
            >Opinions...
            >
            >-Matt Long
            >Phalanx Systems, LLC
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >> -----Original Message-----
            >> From: Bob Cunnings [mailto:cunnings@...]
            >> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:13 PM
            >> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
            >> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Round IV Action Items
            >>
            >> Hello,
            >>
            >> Besides:
            >>
            >> -- SOAP 1.2, including "Web Method Feature"
            >> -- Attachments, DIME and SwA
            >>
            >> for sure, how about considering tests of intermediary processing,
            >which is
            >> a
            >> core SOAP feature? Perhaps WS-Routing could be used as the basis of
            >> testing,
            >> perhaps routing the familiar "echoXXX" messages through
            >intermediaries.
            >> Alternatively, some other SOAP extension could be contrived as part of
            >the
            >> test definition. I'd be happy to create the test cases, supporting
            >docs,
            >> etc. if there is any interest.
            >>
            >> RC
            >>
            >> > Going through the Round IV F2F minutes [1], our understanding (and
            >> > others may share it as well) has been that all the features
            >discussed
            >> > and agreed upon in the F2F will be used as the baseline for the
            >> > Round IV set of tests. Recently, there have been some vendors
            >> > publishing DIME endpoints. Also there are other proposals (on SOAP
            >> > 1.2 HTTP/GET support) under discussion. So I have a few questions
            >> > on this from the Round V F2F point of view. This is to initiate the
            >> > process for setting agenda for the Round V F2F in October.
            >> >
            >> > In the Round V F2F, are we still going to focus on the interop
            >> > testing for items discussed in the Round IV F2F meeting? If yes,
            >> > it will be good to agree on the test cases for these so that
            >> > vendors can implement support for these items before the Round V.
            >> > Also, it will be a good idea to initiate this discussion now to
            >> > prepare for the Round V F2F. Many of us have action items from the
            >> > round IV F2F. Need to check on those action items.
            >> >
            >> > Also in our opinion, it is a good idea to discuss DIME and
            >> > SOAP 1.2 HTTP/GET feature interop testing in the Round V F2F.
            >> > There is enough to be discussed here. For example, WSDL binding
            >> > for SOAP 1.2 and DIME endpoints is largely undefined except a few
            >> > informal proposals. Discussion in the F2F meeting will help us
            >> > to work out such missing details and agree about these details
            >> > and interop tests. Otherwise, we get into a subsetted interop
            >> > testing (where a few vendors support some features while others
            >> > don't), which is clearly not good from the SOAP interoperability
            >> > goal.
            >> >
            >> > Given this, please suggest agenda items for the next F2F. I can
            >> > start collating these as part of the proposed agenda and post it
            >> > to the SOAPBuilders mailing list.
            >> >
            >> > [1]: http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap
            >> >
            >> > Thanks,
            >> > -Arun
            >> >
            >> > --
            >> > =============================================
            >> > There is only one me, I must live myself!
            >> > There is only one today, I must live itself!
            >> > =============================================
            >> > http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
            >> > =============================================
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            >>
            >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
            >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
            >> implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
            >>
            >> 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/
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >-----------------------------------------------------------------
            >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
            >
            >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/
            >
          • Matt Long
            Simon et. al., I shorted listed this from the link. From this I get that DIME is out-of-scope for Interop V (no push-back from MS?) As far as Session ID,
            Message 5 of 16 , Jul 30, 2002
              Simon et. al.,

              I shorted listed this from the link. From this I get that DIME is
              out-of-scope for Interop V (no push-back from MS?) As far as Session
              ID, hashTables, and Datasets where is the discussion on the details on
              the implementation. These items need to be fielded in the public forum
              where a consensus can be reached.

              Would you not agree?

              Thx,

              -Matt Long
              Phalanx Systems, LLC

              Roadmap for next Face to Face
              To be held the first week of October in the Sun Burlington Offices.

              Faults owner: Sun
              Authentication owner: James Snell
              Session - correlation ID owner: James Snell
              Dataset owners: James Snell and Scott
              Sealey
              Collection/Map owners: James Snell and Scott
              Sealey
              XSD Interop owners: Kirill Gavrylyuk
              SOAP with Attachments owners: Simon Fell
              Complex Schema owner: Eric Rajkovic

              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Simon Fell [mailto:ws@...]
              > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 8:30 PM
              > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Round IV Action Items
              >
              > A roadmap for the next F2F was hashed out at the last one, see the
              > bottom of http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html
              >
              > Hopefully those people that signed up for the various bits, will step
              > up to the plate with the relevant bits RSN.
              >
              > Cheers
              > Simon
              > www.pocketsoap.com
              >
              > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:39:46 -0500, in ws you wrote:
              >
              > >All,
              > >
              > >I do tend to think that interop testing is better managed, if the
              > >'roadmap' of what is to be tested is agreed to prior to creation of
              > >tests and proposals thereof. I believe that the ad hoc-ness of the
              > >current 'procedure' does not lend itself moving the ever growing
              > >community toward greater interop in the leanest manner (imho).
              > >
              > >Proposal:
              > >
              > >1) Conference call to determine what is to be tested.
              > > a) This should be a manageable list of items that can be
              > >completed which the scope of the F2F.
              > >2) Ad Hoc build of test proposals.
              > >
              > >
              > >Opinions...
              > >
              > >-Matt Long
              > >Phalanx Systems, LLC
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >> -----Original Message-----
              > >> From: Bob Cunnings [mailto:cunnings@...]
              > >> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:13 PM
              > >> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
              > >> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Round IV Action Items
              > >>
              > >> Hello,
              > >>
              > >> Besides:
              > >>
              > >> -- SOAP 1.2, including "Web Method Feature"
              > >> -- Attachments, DIME and SwA
              > >>
              > >> for sure, how about considering tests of intermediary processing,
              > >which is
              > >> a
              > >> core SOAP feature? Perhaps WS-Routing could be used as the basis of
              > >> testing,
              > >> perhaps routing the familiar "echoXXX" messages through
              > >intermediaries.
              > >> Alternatively, some other SOAP extension could be contrived as part
              of
              > >the
              > >> test definition. I'd be happy to create the test cases, supporting
              > >docs,
              > >> etc. if there is any interest.
              > >>
              > >> RC
              > >>
              > >> > Going through the Round IV F2F minutes [1], our understanding
              (and
              > >> > others may share it as well) has been that all the features
              > >discussed
              > >> > and agreed upon in the F2F will be used as the baseline for the
              > >> > Round IV set of tests. Recently, there have been some vendors
              > >> > publishing DIME endpoints. Also there are other proposals (on
              SOAP
              > >> > 1.2 HTTP/GET support) under discussion. So I have a few questions
              > >> > on this from the Round V F2F point of view. This is to initiate
              the
              > >> > process for setting agenda for the Round V F2F in October.
              > >> >
              > >> > In the Round V F2F, are we still going to focus on the interop
              > >> > testing for items discussed in the Round IV F2F meeting? If yes,
              > >> > it will be good to agree on the test cases for these so that
              > >> > vendors can implement support for these items before the Round V.
              > >> > Also, it will be a good idea to initiate this discussion now to
              > >> > prepare for the Round V F2F. Many of us have action items from
              the
              > >> > round IV F2F. Need to check on those action items.
              > >> >
              > >> > Also in our opinion, it is a good idea to discuss DIME and
              > >> > SOAP 1.2 HTTP/GET feature interop testing in the Round V F2F.
              > >> > There is enough to be discussed here. For example, WSDL binding
              > >> > for SOAP 1.2 and DIME endpoints is largely undefined except a few
              > >> > informal proposals. Discussion in the F2F meeting will help us
              > >> > to work out such missing details and agree about these details
              > >> > and interop tests. Otherwise, we get into a subsetted interop
              > >> > testing (where a few vendors support some features while others
              > >> > don't), which is clearly not good from the SOAP interoperability
              > >> > goal.
              > >> >
              > >> > Given this, please suggest agenda items for the next F2F. I can
              > >> > start collating these as part of the proposed agenda and post it
              > >> > to the SOAPBuilders mailing list.
              > >> >
              > >> > [1]: http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap
              > >> >
              > >> > Thanks,
              > >> > -Arun
              > >> >
              > >> > --
              > >> > =============================================
              > >> > There is only one me, I must live myself!
              > >> > There is only one today, I must live itself!
              > >> > =============================================
              > >> > http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
              > >> > =============================================
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > >>
              > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
              > >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
              discuss
              > >> implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              > >>
              > >> 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/
              > >>
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >-----------------------------------------------------------------
              > >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
              > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              > >
              > >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/
              > >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              >
              > -----------------------------------------------------------------
              > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
              > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              >
              > 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/
              >
            • Simon Fell
              My take was that the SOAP with Attachments part covered all style of attachments not just the SwA spec. [and no one threw their hands up in horror when i
              Message 6 of 16 , Jul 30, 2002
                My take was that the SOAP with Attachments part covered all style of
                attachments not just the SwA spec. [and no one threw their hands up in
                horror when i published both SwA and DIME tests] I find it ironic that
                given SwA implementations outnumber DIME implementations by a factor
                of 2 to 3, that so far only the DIME tests have been implemented.

                Hopefully James will publish the details of the rough consensus from
                the F2F and we can move forward from there.

                Cheers
                Simon

                On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:59:42 -0500, in ws you wrote:

                >Simon et. al.,
                >
                >I shorted listed this from the link. From this I get that DIME is
                >out-of-scope for Interop V (no push-back from MS?) As far as Session
                >ID, hashTables, and Datasets where is the discussion on the details on
                >the implementation. These items need to be fielded in the public forum
                >where a consensus can be reached.
                >
                >Would you not agree?
                >
                >Thx,
                >
                >-Matt Long
                >Phalanx Systems, LLC
                >
                >Roadmap for next Face to Face
                >To be held the first week of October in the Sun Burlington Offices.
                >
                >Faults owner: Sun
                >Authentication owner: James Snell
                >Session - correlation ID owner: James Snell
                >Dataset owners: James Snell and Scott
                >Sealey
                >Collection/Map owners: James Snell and Scott
                >Sealey
                >XSD Interop owners: Kirill Gavrylyuk
                >SOAP with Attachments owners: Simon Fell
                >Complex Schema owner: Eric Rajkovic
                >
                >> -----Original Message-----
                >> From: Simon Fell [mailto:ws@...]
                >> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 8:30 PM
                >> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                >> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Round IV Action Items
                >>
                >> A roadmap for the next F2F was hashed out at the last one, see the
                >> bottom of http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html
                >>
                >> Hopefully those people that signed up for the various bits, will step
                >> up to the plate with the relevant bits RSN.
                >>
                >> Cheers
                >> Simon
                >> www.pocketsoap.com
                >>
                >> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:39:46 -0500, in ws you wrote:
                >>
                >> >All,
                >> >
                >> >I do tend to think that interop testing is better managed, if the
                >> >'roadmap' of what is to be tested is agreed to prior to creation of
                >> >tests and proposals thereof. I believe that the ad hoc-ness of the
                >> >current 'procedure' does not lend itself moving the ever growing
                >> >community toward greater interop in the leanest manner (imho).
                >> >
                >> >Proposal:
                >> >
                >> >1) Conference call to determine what is to be tested.
                >> > a) This should be a manageable list of items that can be
                >> >completed which the scope of the F2F.
                >> >2) Ad Hoc build of test proposals.
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >Opinions...
                >> >
                >> >-Matt Long
                >> >Phalanx Systems, LLC
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >> -----Original Message-----
                >> >> From: Bob Cunnings [mailto:cunnings@...]
                >> >> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:13 PM
                >> >> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                >> >> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Round IV Action Items
                >> >>
                >> >> Hello,
                >> >>
                >> >> Besides:
                >> >>
                >> >> -- SOAP 1.2, including "Web Method Feature"
                >> >> -- Attachments, DIME and SwA
                >> >>
                >> >> for sure, how about considering tests of intermediary processing,
                >> >which is
                >> >> a
                >> >> core SOAP feature? Perhaps WS-Routing could be used as the basis of
                >> >> testing,
                >> >> perhaps routing the familiar "echoXXX" messages through
                >> >intermediaries.
                >> >> Alternatively, some other SOAP extension could be contrived as part
                >of
                >> >the
                >> >> test definition. I'd be happy to create the test cases, supporting
                >> >docs,
                >> >> etc. if there is any interest.
                >> >>
                >> >> RC
                >> >>
                >> >> > Going through the Round IV F2F minutes [1], our understanding
                >(and
                >> >> > others may share it as well) has been that all the features
                >> >discussed
                >> >> > and agreed upon in the F2F will be used as the baseline for the
                >> >> > Round IV set of tests. Recently, there have been some vendors
                >> >> > publishing DIME endpoints. Also there are other proposals (on
                >SOAP
                >> >> > 1.2 HTTP/GET support) under discussion. So I have a few questions
                >> >> > on this from the Round V F2F point of view. This is to initiate
                >the
                >> >> > process for setting agenda for the Round V F2F in October.
                >> >> >
                >> >> > In the Round V F2F, are we still going to focus on the interop
                >> >> > testing for items discussed in the Round IV F2F meeting? If yes,
                >> >> > it will be good to agree on the test cases for these so that
                >> >> > vendors can implement support for these items before the Round V.
                >> >> > Also, it will be a good idea to initiate this discussion now to
                >> >> > prepare for the Round V F2F. Many of us have action items from
                >the
                >> >> > round IV F2F. Need to check on those action items.
                >> >> >
                >> >> > Also in our opinion, it is a good idea to discuss DIME and
                >> >> > SOAP 1.2 HTTP/GET feature interop testing in the Round V F2F.
                >> >> > There is enough to be discussed here. For example, WSDL binding
                >> >> > for SOAP 1.2 and DIME endpoints is largely undefined except a few
                >> >> > informal proposals. Discussion in the F2F meeting will help us
                >> >> > to work out such missing details and agree about these details
                >> >> > and interop tests. Otherwise, we get into a subsetted interop
                >> >> > testing (where a few vendors support some features while others
                >> >> > don't), which is clearly not good from the SOAP interoperability
                >> >> > goal.
                >> >> >
                >> >> > Given this, please suggest agenda items for the next F2F. I can
                >> >> > start collating these as part of the proposed agenda and post it
                >> >> > to the SOAPBuilders mailing list.
                >> >> >
                >> >> > [1]: http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap
                >> >> >
                >> >> > Thanks,
                >> >> > -Arun
                >> >> >
                >> >> > --
                >> >> > =============================================
                >> >> > There is only one me, I must live myself!
                >> >> > There is only one today, I must live itself!
                >> >> > =============================================
                >> >> > http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
                >> >> > =============================================
                >> >>
                >> >>
                >> >>
                >> >>
                >> >>
                >> >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                >> >>
                >> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
                >> >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
                >discuss
                >> >> implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                >> >>
                >> >> 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/
                >> >>
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
                >> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
                >> implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                >> >
                >> >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/
                >> >
                >>
                >>
                >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                >>
                >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
                >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
                >> implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                >>
                >> 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/
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >-----------------------------------------------------------------
                >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                >
                >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/
                >
              • keith_ballinger
                What about focusing on: 1) a subset of previous tests, but with SOAP 1.2 2) more WSDL, especially complex types and XSD interop in general 3) attachments(DIME
                Message 7 of 16 , Jul 31, 2002
                  What about focusing on:

                  1) a subset of previous tests, but with SOAP 1.2
                  2) more WSDL, especially complex types and XSD interop in general
                  3) attachments(DIME or MIME)

                  That's more than enough work. If we must add more to pile, faults and
                  datasets would be beneficial to customers as well.

                  --- In soapbuilders@y..., Simon Fell <ws@z...> wrote:
                  > My take was that the SOAP with Attachments part covered all style of
                  > attachments not just the SwA spec. [and no one threw their hands up
                  in
                  > horror when i published both SwA and DIME tests] I find it ironic
                  that
                  > given SwA implementations outnumber DIME implementations by a factor
                  > of 2 to 3, that so far only the DIME tests have been implemented.
                  >
                  > Hopefully James will publish the details of the rough consensus from
                  > the F2F and we can move forward from there.
                  >
                  > Cheers
                  > Simon
                  >
                  > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:59:42 -0500, in ws you wrote:
                  >
                  > >Simon et. al.,
                  > >
                  > >I shorted listed this from the link. From this I get that DIME is
                  > >out-of-scope for Interop V (no push-back from MS?) As far as
                  Session
                  > >ID, hashTables, and Datasets where is the discussion on the
                  details on
                  > >the implementation. These items need to be fielded in the public
                  forum
                  > >where a consensus can be reached.
                  > >
                  > >Would you not agree?
                  > >
                  > >Thx,
                  > >
                  > >-Matt Long
                  > >Phalanx Systems, LLC
                  > >
                  > >Roadmap for next Face to Face
                  > >To be held the first week of October in the Sun Burlington
                  Offices.
                  > >
                  > >Faults owner: Sun
                  > >Authentication owner: James Snell
                  > >Session - correlation ID owner: James Snell
                  > >Dataset owners: James Snell and Scott
                  > >Sealey
                  > >Collection/Map owners: James Snell and Scott
                  > >Sealey
                  > >XSD Interop owners: Kirill Gavrylyuk
                  > >SOAP with Attachments owners: Simon Fell
                  > >Complex Schema owner: Eric Rajkovic
                  > >
                • Arun Gupta
                  If the features discussed in Round IV F2F were a roadmap for Round V, what tests needs to be written in Round IV ? We really appreciate the importance of
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jul 31, 2002
                    If the features discussed in Round IV F2F were a roadmap for Round V,
                    what tests needs to be written in Round IV ?

                    We really appreciate the importance of running clients against different
                    vendors' endpoints in the F2F. This helped in resolving quite a few
                    issues in the respective implementations. But if there are no tests
                    clearly defined for Round IV, then we may end up having different
                    vendors with different set of tests. Or else we may be doing Round 2 and
                    Round 3 interop testing.

                    Thanks,
                    -Arun

                    Simon Fell wrote:

                    > A roadmap for the next F2F was hashed out at the last one, see the
                    > bottom of http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html
                    >
                    > Hopefully those people that signed up for the various bits, will step
                    > up to the plate with the relevant bits RSN.
                    >
                    > Cheers
                    > Simon
                    > www.pocketsoap.com
                    >
                    > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:39:46 -0500, in ws you wrote:
                    >
                    > >All,
                    > >
                    > >I do tend to think that interop testing is better managed, if the
                    > >'roadmap' of what is to be tested is agreed to prior to creation of
                    > >tests and proposals thereof. I believe that the ad hoc-ness of the
                    > >current 'procedure' does not lend itself moving the ever growing
                    > >community toward greater interop in the leanest manner (imho).
                    > >
                    > >Proposal:
                    > >
                    > >1) Conference call to determine what is to be tested.
                    > > a) This should be a manageable list of items that can be
                    > >completed which the scope of the F2F.
                    > >2) Ad Hoc build of test proposals.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >Opinions...
                    > >
                    > >-Matt Long
                    > >Phalanx Systems, LLC
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >> -----Original Message-----
                    > >> From: Bob Cunnings [mailto:cunnings@...]
                    > >> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:13 PM
                    > >> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                    > >> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Round IV Action Items
                    > >>
                    > >> Hello,
                    > >>
                    > >> Besides:
                    > >>
                    > >> -- SOAP 1.2, including "Web Method Feature"
                    > >> -- Attachments, DIME and SwA
                    > >>
                    > >> for sure, how about considering tests of intermediary processing,
                    > >which is
                    > >> a
                    > >> core SOAP feature? Perhaps WS-Routing could be used as the basis of
                    > >> testing,
                    > >> perhaps routing the familiar "echoXXX" messages through
                    > >intermediaries.
                    > >> Alternatively, some other SOAP extension could be contrived as part of
                    > >the
                    > >> test definition. I'd be happy to create the test cases, supporting
                    > >docs,
                    > >> etc. if there is any interest.
                    > >>
                    > >> RC
                    > >>
                    > >> > Going through the Round IV F2F minutes [1], our understanding (and
                    > >> > others may share it as well) has been that all the features
                    > >discussed
                    > >> > and agreed upon in the F2F will be used as the baseline for the
                    > >> > Round IV set of tests. Recently, there have been some vendors
                    > >> > publishing DIME endpoints. Also there are other proposals (on SOAP
                    > >> > 1.2 HTTP/GET support) under discussion. So I have a few questions
                    > >> > on this from the Round V F2F point of view. This is to initiate the
                    > >> > process for setting agenda for the Round V F2F in October.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > In the Round V F2F, are we still going to focus on the interop
                    > >> > testing for items discussed in the Round IV F2F meeting? If yes,
                    > >> > it will be good to agree on the test cases for these so that
                    > >> > vendors can implement support for these items before the Round V.
                    > >> > Also, it will be a good idea to initiate this discussion now to
                    > >> > prepare for the Round V F2F. Many of us have action items from the
                    > >> > round IV F2F. Need to check on those action items.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > Also in our opinion, it is a good idea to discuss DIME and
                    > >> > SOAP 1.2 HTTP/GET feature interop testing in the Round V F2F.
                    > >> > There is enough to be discussed here. For example, WSDL binding
                    > >> > for SOAP 1.2 and DIME endpoints is largely undefined except a few
                    > >> > informal proposals. Discussion in the F2F meeting will help us
                    > >> > to work out such missing details and agree about these details
                    > >> > and interop tests. Otherwise, we get into a subsetted interop
                    > >> > testing (where a few vendors support some features while others
                    > >> > don't), which is clearly not good from the SOAP interoperability
                    > >> > goal.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > Given this, please suggest agenda items for the next F2F. I can
                    > >> > start collating these as part of the proposed agenda and post it
                    > >> > to the SOAPBuilders mailing list.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > [1]: http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap
                    > >> >
                    > >> > Thanks,
                    > >> > -Arun
                    > >> >
                    > >> > --
                    > >> > =============================================
                    > >> > There is only one me, I must live myself!
                    > >> > There is only one today, I must live itself!
                    > >> > =============================================
                    > >> > http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
                    > <http://members.tripod.com/%7Eapgupta/index.html>
                    > >> > =============================================
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    > >>
                    > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
                    > >> implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                    > >>
                    > >> 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/
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >-----------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
                    > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                    > >
                    > >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/
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    > ADVERTISEMENT
                    > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705701014:HM/A=1155065/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-302>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                    > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
                    > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                    > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


                    --
                    =============================================
                    There is only one me, I must live myself!
                    There is only one today, I must live itself!
                    =============================================
                    http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
                    =============================================
                  • Sam Ruby
                    ... +1 - Sam Ruby
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jul 31, 2002
                      Bob Cunnings wrote:
                      >
                      > -- SOAP 1.2, including "Web Method Feature"
                      > -- Attachments, DIME and SwA

                      +1

                      - Sam Ruby
                    • Arun Gupta
                      ... We own the test cases on fault interoperability and will be sending out a proposal for the same later. If you have any suggestions, then please let me
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jul 31, 2002
                        > > What about focusing on:
                        > >
                        > > 1) a subset of previous tests, but with SOAP 1.2
                        > > 2) more WSDL, especially complex types and XSD interop in general
                        >
                        > One thing that's been lacking is use of the wsdl:fault and soap:fault
                        > elements, something that would go hand in hand with "fault testing"
                        > in the more general sense. I imagine that custom fault messages
                        > (meaning the contents of the "details" element in the fault
                        > message) could be defined and tested. But as you say, that's only
                        > if faults are to be added to the pile.


                        We own the test cases on fault interoperability and will be sending out
                        a proposal for the same later. If you have any suggestions, then please
                        let me know.

                        Thanks,
                        -Arun

                        >
                        >
                        > RC
                        >
                        > > 3) attachments(DIME or MIME)
                        > >
                        > > That's more than enough work. If we must add more to pile, faults and
                        > > datasets would be beneficial to customers as well.
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        > ADVERTISEMENT
                        > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705701014:HM/A=1155069/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-302>
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
                        > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                        > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


                        --
                        =============================================
                        There is only one me, I must live myself!
                        There is only one today, I must live itself!
                        =============================================
                        http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
                        =============================================
                      • Bob Cunnings
                        Hi, ... One thing that s been lacking is use of the wsdl:fault and soap:fault elements, something that would go hand in hand with fault testing in the more
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jul 31, 2002
                          Hi,

                          > What about focusing on:
                          >
                          > 1) a subset of previous tests, but with SOAP 1.2
                          > 2) more WSDL, especially complex types and XSD interop in general

                          One thing that's been lacking is use of the wsdl:fault and soap:fault
                          elements, something that would go hand in hand with "fault testing"
                          in the more general sense. I imagine that custom fault messages
                          (meaning the contents of the "details" element in the fault
                          message) could be defined and tested. But as you say, that's only
                          if faults are to be added to the pile.

                          RC

                          > 3) attachments(DIME or MIME)
                          >
                          > That's more than enough work. If we must add more to pile, faults and
                          > datasets would be beneficial to customers as well.
                          >
                        • Simon Fell
                          Perhaps we should set a deadline for various test owners to publish their test documents ? Cheers Simon
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jul 31, 2002
                            Perhaps we should set a deadline for various test owners to publish
                            their test documents ?

                            Cheers
                            Simon

                            On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:12:40 -0700, in ws you wrote:

                            >If the features discussed in Round IV F2F were a roadmap for Round V,
                            >what tests needs to be written in Round IV ?
                            >
                            >We really appreciate the importance of running clients against different
                            >vendors' endpoints in the F2F. This helped in resolving quite a few
                            >issues in the respective implementations. But if there are no tests
                            >clearly defined for Round IV, then we may end up having different
                            >vendors with different set of tests. Or else we may be doing Round 2 and
                            >Round 3 interop testing.
                            >
                            >Thanks,
                            >-Arun
                            >
                            >Simon Fell wrote:
                            >
                            >> A roadmap for the next F2F was hashed out at the last one, see the
                            >> bottom of http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html
                            >>
                            >> Hopefully those people that signed up for the various bits, will step
                            >> up to the plate with the relevant bits RSN.
                            >>
                            >> Cheers
                            >> Simon
                            >> www.pocketsoap.com
                            >>
                            >> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:39:46 -0500, in ws you wrote:
                            >>
                            >> >All,
                            >> >
                            >> >I do tend to think that interop testing is better managed, if the
                            >> >'roadmap' of what is to be tested is agreed to prior to creation of
                            >> >tests and proposals thereof. I believe that the ad hoc-ness of the
                            >> >current 'procedure' does not lend itself moving the ever growing
                            >> >community toward greater interop in the leanest manner (imho).
                            >> >
                            >> >Proposal:
                            >> >
                            >> >1) Conference call to determine what is to be tested.
                            >> > a) This should be a manageable list of items that can be
                            >> >completed which the scope of the F2F.
                            >> >2) Ad Hoc build of test proposals.
                            >> >
                            >> >
                            >> >Opinions...
                            >> >
                            >> >-Matt Long
                            >> >Phalanx Systems, LLC
                            >> >
                            >> >
                            >> >
                            >> >
                            >> >
                            >> >> -----Original Message-----
                            >> >> From: Bob Cunnings [mailto:cunnings@...]
                            >> >> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:13 PM
                            >> >> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                            >> >> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Round IV Action Items
                            >> >>
                            >> >> Hello,
                            >> >>
                            >> >> Besides:
                            >> >>
                            >> >> -- SOAP 1.2, including "Web Method Feature"
                            >> >> -- Attachments, DIME and SwA
                            >> >>
                            >> >> for sure, how about considering tests of intermediary processing,
                            >> >which is
                            >> >> a
                            >> >> core SOAP feature? Perhaps WS-Routing could be used as the basis of
                            >> >> testing,
                            >> >> perhaps routing the familiar "echoXXX" messages through
                            >> >intermediaries.
                            >> >> Alternatively, some other SOAP extension could be contrived as part of
                            >> >the
                            >> >> test definition. I'd be happy to create the test cases, supporting
                            >> >docs,
                            >> >> etc. if there is any interest.
                            >> >>
                            >> >> RC
                            >> >>
                            >> >> > Going through the Round IV F2F minutes [1], our understanding (and
                            >> >> > others may share it as well) has been that all the features
                            >> >discussed
                            >> >> > and agreed upon in the F2F will be used as the baseline for the
                            >> >> > Round IV set of tests. Recently, there have been some vendors
                            >> >> > publishing DIME endpoints. Also there are other proposals (on SOAP
                            >> >> > 1.2 HTTP/GET support) under discussion. So I have a few questions
                            >> >> > on this from the Round V F2F point of view. This is to initiate the
                            >> >> > process for setting agenda for the Round V F2F in October.
                            >> >> >
                            >> >> > In the Round V F2F, are we still going to focus on the interop
                            >> >> > testing for items discussed in the Round IV F2F meeting? If yes,
                            >> >> > it will be good to agree on the test cases for these so that
                            >> >> > vendors can implement support for these items before the Round V.
                            >> >> > Also, it will be a good idea to initiate this discussion now to
                            >> >> > prepare for the Round V F2F. Many of us have action items from the
                            >> >> > round IV F2F. Need to check on those action items.
                            >> >> >
                            >> >> > Also in our opinion, it is a good idea to discuss DIME and
                            >> >> > SOAP 1.2 HTTP/GET feature interop testing in the Round V F2F.
                            >> >> > There is enough to be discussed here. For example, WSDL binding
                            >> >> > for SOAP 1.2 and DIME endpoints is largely undefined except a few
                            >> >> > informal proposals. Discussion in the F2F meeting will help us
                            >> >> > to work out such missing details and agree about these details
                            >> >> > and interop tests. Otherwise, we get into a subsetted interop
                            >> >> > testing (where a few vendors support some features while others
                            >> >> > don't), which is clearly not good from the SOAP interoperability
                            >> >> > goal.
                            >> >> >
                            >> >> > Given this, please suggest agenda items for the next F2F. I can
                            >> >> > start collating these as part of the proposed agenda and post it
                            >> >> > to the SOAPBuilders mailing list.
                            >> >> >
                            >> >> > [1]: http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap
                            >> >> >
                            >> >> > Thanks,
                            >> >> > -Arun
                            >> >> >
                            >> >> > --
                            >> >> > =============================================
                            >> >> > There is only one me, I must live myself!
                            >> >> > There is only one today, I must live itself!
                            >> >> > =============================================
                            >> >> > http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
                            >> <http://members.tripod.com/%7Eapgupta/index.html>
                            >> >> > =============================================
                            >> >>
                            >> >>
                            >> >>
                            >> >>
                            >> >>
                            >> >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            >> >>
                            >> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
                            >> >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
                            >> >> implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                            >> >>
                            >> >> 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/
                            >> >>
                            >> >
                            >> >
                            >> >
                            >> >
                            >> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
                            >> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
                            >> implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                            >> >
                            >> >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/
                            >> >
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            >> ADVERTISEMENT
                            >> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705701014:HM/A=1155065/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-302>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
                            >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
                            >> implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                            >>
                            >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            >> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                            >> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                          • Paul Prescod
                            ... Is there anything I can do to help advance GET testing? For anyone who didn t see it, I made a proposal that I meant to be pretty simple, doable and
                            Message 13 of 16 , Aug 1 2:36 PM
                              Simon Fell wrote:
                              >
                              > Perhaps we should set a deadline for various test owners to publish
                              > their test documents ?

                              Is there anything I can do to help advance GET testing? For anyone who
                              didn't see it, I made a proposal that I meant to be pretty simple,
                              doable and hopefully uncontroversial:

                              * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/8203

                              I'm not sure what the process is to move forward on it or discard it if
                              it isn't appropriate.

                              --
                              XML, Web Services Architecture, REST Architectural Style
                              Consulting, training, programming: http://www.constantrevolution.com
                              Come discuss XML and REST web services at the Extreme Markup Conference
                            • Matt Long
                              Paul, Why would the GET and POST URI be required to be the same. Albeit, not a bad idea. Thx, -Matt Long Phalanx Systems, LLC ... if ... Conference ...
                              Message 14 of 16 , Aug 2 6:30 AM
                                Paul,

                                Why would the 'GET' and 'POST' URI be required to be the same. Albeit,
                                not a bad idea.

                                Thx,

                                -Matt Long
                                Phalanx Systems, LLC


                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@...]
                                > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 4:36 PM
                                > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Round IV Action Items
                                >
                                > Simon Fell wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Perhaps we should set a deadline for various test owners to publish
                                > > their test documents ?
                                >
                                > Is there anything I can do to help advance GET testing? For anyone who
                                > didn't see it, I made a proposal that I meant to be pretty simple,
                                > doable and hopefully uncontroversial:
                                >
                                > * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/8203
                                >
                                > I'm not sure what the process is to move forward on it or discard it
                                if
                                > it isn't appropriate.
                                >
                                > --
                                > XML, Web Services Architecture, REST Architectural Style
                                > Consulting, training, programming: http://www.constantrevolution.com
                                > Come discuss XML and REST web services at the Extreme Markup
                                Conference
                                >
                                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                >
                                > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
                                > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                                >
                                > 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/
                                >
                              • Sam Ruby
                                ... Hi Matt, See the following discussion: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/8204 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/8205
                                Message 15 of 16 , Aug 2 7:39 AM
                                  Matt Long wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Why would the 'GET' and 'POST' URI be required to be the same. Albeit,
                                  > not a bad idea.

                                  Hi Matt,

                                  See the following discussion:

                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/8204
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/8205
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/8206
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/8207

                                  - Sam Ruby
                                • Bob Cunnings
                                  Hi, Regarding GET testing... I see two options here: a) retrofit existing published interop test endpoints with the new feature as you suggest, using the same
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Aug 2 9:56 AM
                                    Hi,

                                    Regarding GET testing...

                                    I see two options here:

                                    a) retrofit existing published interop test endpoints with the new
                                    feature as you suggest, using the same URI for POST and GET,
                                    perhaps returning endpoint metadata as you suggest.

                                    or

                                    b) define a new interop service for the purpose, using new
                                    endpoints, perhaps something of a "conversational" nature.

                                    It may be as much a question of convenience as anything, I can
                                    only say that for myself I have no preference, either option would
                                    work (I hope to have the existing WM endpoints supporting SOAP
                                    1.2 LC in a few days).

                                    Comments?

                                    RC


                                    > Simon Fell wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Perhaps we should set a deadline for various test owners to publish
                                    > > their test documents ?
                                    >
                                    > Is there anything I can do to help advance GET testing? For anyone who
                                    > didn't see it, I made a proposal that I meant to be pretty simple,
                                    > doable and hopefully uncontroversial:
                                    >
                                    > * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/8203
                                    >
                                    > I'm not sure what the process is to move forward on it or discard it if
                                    > it isn't appropriate.
                                    >
                                    > --
                                    > XML, Web Services Architecture, REST Architectural Style
                                    > Consulting, training, programming: http://www.constantrevolution.com
                                    > Come discuss XML and REST web services at the Extreme Markup Conference
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.