On Monday 04 April 2011 5:32:49 PM Eric Johnson wrote:
> I've a question for the CXF developers. To quickly introduce myself, I'm
> the chair of the W3C WG for SOAP/JMS [1].
>
> We're at the point where we want to declare a "Proposed Recommendation"
> (PR) for what is currently our "working draft" [2]. For those
> unfamiliar, that's the step before declaring something an actual W3C
> official "Recommendation." [4]
>
> To achieve this milestone, we simply need to have two implementations of
> the specification. More specifically, we need two implementations of
> each and every normative statement of the specification - even those
> normative statements that are optional.
That's interesting. If you don't mind my asking, what's the other
implementation? Not sure if you can say that or not. We've obviously done
quite a bit of testing CXF<--->CXF, but not really any interop testing.
Thus, it would be good to really try some interop testing with another
implementation.
> From work I've done looking at the source code and the samples, it
> appears that CXF falls into that category. Of particular concern, we're
> curious about the WSDL extension elements that we've defined, in part
> because some of the vendors we've talked to have indicated that they
> will not be supporting such extension elements.
I know we have some tests that stick the extensions all over the place in the
wsdl. While I personsonally don't aggree with some of the places they are
allowed, I know the spec does allow for them so the tests are valid.
> In any case, I'm looking for some sort of public statement from the CXF
> developers about each the normative statements ("assertions") [3] from
> the spec, and whether each is covered by the CXF implementation. Since
> the specification has changed slightly since the last working draft -
> mostly to clarify the assertions, and fix some oversights - it would
> actually be useful to know about CXF with respect to our latest working
> copy, and its assertions [5], and that either or both will do.
>
> Can anyone comment?
Honestly, Peter Easton might know a bit more since the last patch in this area
came from him. See:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2949
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2950
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2951
Looking at the test suite itself:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/systests/transports/src/test/java/org/apache/cxf/jms/testsuite/testcases
I do see some tests that are missing from the official suite:
http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/testcases/testcases/testcases.html
test0007
test0015
test0016
test0017
test0018
test0019
test0020
test1005
What I DON'T know is if the features tested by those tests are not implemented
in CXF or just not tested or possibly tested as part of one of the other
tests. If anyone would like to fill those in, I'd be happy to review and
apply any patches.
Dan
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Eric Johnson
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-soapjms-20101026/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-soapjms-20101026/#assertionsummary
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-advance
> [5]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-ty
> pe=text/html;charset=utf-8#assertionsummary
--
Daniel Kulp
[email protected]
http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend - http://www.talend.com
