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

Re: [soapbuilders] Round 4 groups

Expand Messages
  • Arun Gupta
    I like R4 Faults nomenclature because it reflects the fact that we are talking about Round 4 tests and that these are fault interop test cases. However we
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I like "R4 Faults" nomenclature because it reflects the fact that we are
      talking about Round 4 tests and that these are fault interop test cases.
      However we may have to think about how do we distinguish the various
      WSDLs within each test.

      I would have talked about [1] in today's telecon. This page tracks the
      status of various action items assigned during Round IV F2F. As Bob
      mentioned about maintaining a master list of R4 interop tests, I think
      we can use this page for similar purpose. The actual specifications may
      be maintained at [2].

      Right now, the information on the page is minimal. However I can edit
      the contents of the page depending upon the requirement and feedback.

      I can update the page if somebody can inform me James Snell's mail-id
      and organization.

      [1] http://soapinterop.java.sun.com/soapbuilders/r4/tracker.html
      [2] http://www.whitemesa.net/r4/interop4.html

      Regards,
      -Arun

      Bob Cunnings wrote:

      > I would like to see the nomenclature reflect the fact that these are Round 4
      > tests, whether it be "4.x" or "R4 Faults" or "R4 Group G".
      >
      > The more systematic "4.x" format is ok, but there would have to be consensus
      > on the assignment of designators to test cases. In this case it might even
      > be useful to use the format "4.x.x" to distinguish, for example, "4.2.1"
      > (Faults simple-rpc-encoded) from "4.2.2" (Faults complex-rpc-encoded). A
      > good way to slice it might be to generate a designator for each WSDL doc
      > (i.e. service) used to define the test. For instance, "Faults", if assigned
      > number 4.2, would be subdivided into the designators 4.2.1 through 4.2.5 as
      > there are five WSDL docs involved. Speaking only for myself, that kind of
      > structure is helpful when writing test scripts, generating results tables,
      > etc. as it provides a very concise name for "things". A master list of R4
      > interop tests would have to be maintained somewhere, and test plans added on
      > as they are published. At the moment the lineup would be:
      >
      > 4.1 Attachments
      > 4.2 Faults
      > 4.3 WSDL/XSD Testing
      >
      > Whatever is decided, I'll amend the Round 4 index on the WM site to match.
      > Right now it continues the old pattern, using G, H, and I to designate the 3
      > test groups published so far.
      >
      > RC
      >
      > > Hi SOAPers,
      > >
      > > Just a friday evening thought ....
      > >
      > > Since we are seeing more test specifications coming out from Round IV
      > > F2F, I think it might be a good idea to organize the tests in various
      > > groups to keep the logical structure of the tests, as we've done in the
      > > previous rounds.
      > >
      > > And this time instead of referring to groups as "Group G" or "Group H",
      > > we may refer to them as Group 4.1 or Group 4.2. Otherwise it can
      > > confusing later on to correlate what group belongs to what round.
      > >
      > > What do people think ?
      > >
      > > 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
      > ADVERTISEMENT
      > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=232673.2303527.3721118.2225243/D=egroupweb/S=1705701014:HM/A=1194123/R=0/*http://www.adinsdirect.com/>
      >
      >
      > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > 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
      =============================================
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.