Okay... At this point my understanding is it's not needed to perform compatibility tests with WebServices.
I would say if you QA to test WebService between different versions at any time, you will need to provide a compatible testsuite. Clebert -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Diesler Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 2:41 PM To: Clebert Suconic Cc: Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: WebServices in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite Hi Clebert, see attached my earlier response. With web service, the endpoint and the client are fundamentally detached (i.e. the server side endpoint does not care what technology put the message on the wire) All of our WS tests currently deploy the endpoint and the client to the same box - this is not very sensible. Similar to a J2EE-1.4 application client, the client should be deployed to a separate box (that may run a different jboss version) If you look at testsuite/output/lib you see jars like ws4ee-sometest.jar + ws4ee-sometest-client.jar Form JBossTest, both jars should be deployable to different jboss versions. This is currently not possible. Please create a JIRA issue for this requirement that equally applies to all tests where the client does a jndi lookup - it should not use the jndi tree from the server if you want to test compatibility. Cheers -thomas > -----Original Message----- > From: Clebert Suconic > Sent: 06 February 2006 16:29 > To: Thomas Diesler > Subject: FW: WebServices in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite > > Hey Thomas... > > I don't know if you saw that e-mail. > > We still need to know if there are client libraries that need to be > validated. > > Or if we don't need to validate client libraries, if it's required to > validate any sort of protocol in between versions. (3.2.x vs previous, > 4.0.x vs previous). > > It seems that you said that 3.2.x it's not needed even within previous > version of 3.2.x, but what about 4.0.x withing previous prevsions. > > Please, copy QA in your answer. > > Thanks > > > Clebert > > -----Original Message----- > From: Clebert Suconic > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 11:20 AM > To: Thomas Diesler > Cc: QA; Dimitris Andreadis; Scott M Stark; Ryan Campbell > Subject: RE: WebServices in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite > > >For QA: Generally web service client deployments should be disconnected > from web service endpoint deployments. Currently an application client is > deployed on the same host as the webservice endpoint - this is strictly > speaking incorrect. > > We know what a webservice is (that is a disconnected service endpoint), > but we need to know if there are client libraries that might need to be > required on WebService clients. > > You already answered our question about if we need interoperability > between 3.2.x and 4.0.x, but you didn't answer what tests we need (or even > if we have to) to execute to guarantee interoperability between 4.0.x and > previous versions of 4. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Diesler > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 7:20 AM > To: Dimitris Andreadis; Scott M Stark; Ryan Campbell; Clebert Suconic > Cc: QA > Subject: RE: WebServices in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite > > Hi Dimitris, > > There is no need to test interoperability between 3.2.x and 4.0.x web > services . With jboss 4.0.x we have J2EE-1.4 compliant web services that > did not exist prior to jboss-4.0.0. The Jboss.Net implementation is > shipped with jboss-4.0.x as an optional module in docs/examples. If > customers really choose to install Jboss.NET on jboss-4.0.x (what we > discourage them from doing so) and they really run into interop issues > with jboss-3.2.x, we will be dealing with those on a case by case basis. > > For QA: Generally web service client deployments should be disconnected > from web service endpoint deployments. Currently an application client is > deployed on the same host as the webservice endpoint - this is strictly > speaking incorrect. > > Cheers > -thomas > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dimitris Andreadis > > Sent: 03 February 2006 09:50 > > To: Thomas Diesler > > Subject: WebServices in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite > > Importance: High > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > Is there any chance of interoperability between 3.2.x / 4.0.x > webservices? > > > > If yes, is there someone from WS team, to work on this now? > > > > We are at the last stages of finalizing 3.2.8 (we are supposed to > release > > on Monday 6th) so a quick response is appreciated :) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott M Stark > > Sent: 03 February, 2006 00:38 > > To: Clebert Suconic; Ryan Campbell; Dimitris Andreadis; QA > > Cc: Thomas Diesler > > Subject: RE: Inclusion of jbossmx in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite > > > > A server side library should not be required for the recent jboss > > webservice tests/stacks. The 3.2 branch may not have a descent > webservice > > stack and might need to be excluded, but the 4.0.x interop tests should > > work. > > > > I would expect at least some basic webservice tests should work between > > 3.2.8 and 4.0.x. Thomas would know better. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Clebert Suconic > > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 5:16 PM > > To: Ryan Campbell; Scott M Stark; Dimitris Andreadis; QA > > Subject: RE: Inclusion of jbossmx in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite > > > > If we do include webservices tests, we will probably need to add some > > library from the server into client libs. Is that correct? > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ryan Campbell > > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:11 PM > > To: Scott M Stark; Clebert Suconic; Dimitris Andreadis; QA > > Subject: RE: Inclusion of jbossmx in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite > > > > Ok, we will remove the jbossmx tests from the compat matrix. > > > > Do we want to include all the webservices tests, or just a subset? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott M Stark > > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:26 PM > > To: Clebert Suconic; Dimitris Andreadis; QA > > Cc: Ryan Campbell > > Subject: RE: Inclusion of jbossmx in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite > > > > The org.jboss.test.jbossmx.* tests are really for the jboss jmx > > implementation and really should just be in the jmx module(they are in > > fact there but because jmx was core to the server and we have no way to > > include the module local tests in the overall testsuite they were > > duplicated). > > > > I would say these tests should not be in the interop tests, but why are > > they failing if they are local to the client testsuite? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Clebert Suconic > > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:03 PM > > To: Dimitris Andreadis; QA; Scott M Stark > > Cc: Ryan Campbell > > Subject: RE: Inclusion of jbossmx in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite > > > > Ah... ok, you're right... I didn't about server2server communication. > > > > I guess it makes sense then, what you think Scott? > > > > Also... does it still make sense to keep a client-only test version? > > > > > > Clebert > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dimitris Andreadis > > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:54 PM > > To: Clebert Suconic; QA; Scott M Stark > > Cc: Ryan Campbell > > Subject: RE: Inclusion of jbossmx in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite > > > > > > I agree the tests should need only client libraries. > > > > But my perception of an interoperability test is the testsuite using the > > client libs to eventually communicate with a server running on different > > version libraries and exchange some data. > > > > The jbossmx tests are all local and you can run them without a running > > server, so in this case we are testing the contract between the > testsuite > > and the client libs (which I presume is tested as part of the respective > > testsuite, e.g. 3.2.x), but not the interoperabiliby/compatibility > between > > different versions of client and server. > > > > That's why I'm asking if it makes sense. :) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Clebert Suconic > > > Sent: 02 February, 2006 22:44 > > > To: Dimitris Andreadis; QA; Scott M Stark > > > Cc: Ryan Campbell > > > Subject: RE: Inclusion of jbossmx in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite > > > > > > IMO the tests we run should only rely on client libraries. > > > If a test requires a server library it shouldn't be part of > > > the matrix testsuite. > > > > > > I just think this is good to test if the projects are > > > isolating the clients correctly. I still remember when I was > > > writing this few months ago when we found JBoss Remoting > > > requiring some server side libraries (this is fixed already). > > > If we had server libraries on the client by default we > > > wouldn't have caught the error at that time. > > > > > > The webservice is empty because all of the webservice tests > > > are requiring server side libraries, and they were all failing. > > > > > > > > > Clebert > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dimitris Andreadis > > > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:25 PM > > > To: QA; Scott M Stark > > > Cc: Clebert Suconic; Ryan Campbell > > > Subject: Inclusion of jbossmx in the 3.2.8 compatibility testsuite > > > > > > > > > Currently the bulk of the testsuite errors (8 Error, 66 > > > Failures) come from testing of jbossmx tests against 7 > > > different client lib versions. > > > > > > However those tests are not run against the server, they are > > > client-side tests only. > > > > > > Does it make sense to include them in the compatibility > > > testsuite? Isn't enough that those tests are performed in > > > their respective 3.2.x / 4.0.x testsuites? > > > > > > Similarily do you see any other tests that should be included? > > > > > > Currently we have: > > > > > > (the webservice is actually emtpy) > > > > > > <execute-matrix-unit test-name="testbyvalue" > > > parameter-filter="org/jboss/test/testbyvalue/test/**/*TestCase > > > .class"/> > > > <execute-matrix-unit test-name="client" > > > parameter-filter="org/jboss/test/client/**/*TestCase.class"/> > > > <execute-matrix-unit test-name="webservice" > > > parameter-filter="org/jboss/test/webservice/**/*TestCase.class"/> > > > <execute-matrix-unit test-name="bmp" > > > parameter-filter="org/jboss/test/bmp/**/*TestCase.class"/> > > > <execute-matrix-unit test-name="cmp2" > > > parameter-filter="org/jboss/test/cmp2/**/*TestCase.class"/> > > > <execute-matrix-unit test-name="jbossmx" > > > parameter-filter="org/jboss/test/jbossmx/**/*TestCase.class"/> > > > <execute-matrix-unit test-name="jms" > > > parameter-filter="org/jboss/test/jbossmq/test/**Test.class"/> > > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 _______________________________________________ JBoss-Development mailing list JBoss-Development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
