Rupert Smith wrote:
I have some pending commits to make on the Java side of interop to complete
it. Are you doing the C++ as per the spec. so they will talk to one
another?
Yes, I am trying to do that. Also looking at whats there so far on the
java side.
The property name for the assigned role isn't yet specified (at least I
couldn't find it). I just used 'ROLE' for now. The valid values aren't
specified either - ideally that would be done per test case to allow
future cases to vary the roles if needed.
Some questions:
* Does start only get called for certain roles (e.g. sender)?
* I'm assuming that the report should be sent in response to the start
request, at least for the sender. However I wasn't sure if the receiver
should do the same or send it in response to the status request.
* I'm guessing that the reply-to on both messages would be the same
anyway, but probably worth clarifying. This also means we have to
standardise on the format for reply-to - I'll take what the jms client
does as that standard for now. (In part I would rather use a well-known
queue for responses, but whats there works as well).
Some suggestions:
* can we combine the role assignment and start controls? (This would get
rid of the ambiguity pointed out in the second question above).
* do we need both CLIENT_NAME and CLIENT_PRIVATE_CONTROL_KEY given that
the latter includes the former? e.g. could we just assign names to
processes from the command line and use a topic style hierachy such as
iop.control.java.receiver1, iop.control.java.receiver2,
iop.control.cpp.sender1 etc
* STATUS_REQUEST seems more like a STOP request to me, sent to roles
that do not have a natural, automatic completion point. All roles would
send a report on completion.
Once I've got the Java checked in I think I will write the interop test
clients for .Net too.
Also, I'm doing this on the M2 branch.
Me too.
