[BYTEIO-WG] ByteIO Interop Document

[Michel Drescher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

All,

Mark Morgan wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
> 
> On the telecon today, an issue was raised about the interoperability
> document that needs to be addressed this week if possible (via email if
> possible).  Basically, everyone seems to agree that we need to get WSRF
> ResourceProperties to test the properties that part part of the ByteIO
> specification (getting the size of a ByteIO resource, etc.).  However, I
> personally am of the opinion that we should minimize the amount of
> non-ByteIO specific mechanism that we test as our purpose is only to test
> ByteIO and not WSRF.  That said, I think we should utilize the simplist
> Resource Property operation, namely GetResourceProperty, but not use other
> WSRF-RP operations such as QueryResourceProperties and
> GetMultipleResourceProperties.  I just don't feel like their inclusion in
> our test serves any purpose beyond interoperability testing of WSRF which
> isn't our goal.  Thoughts?

While I agree on minimising testnig WSRF, the current interop document
version covers (I think) all MUST resource properties when all WSRF
related test cases are executed, so it would be nice to retain that
coverage.

On the other hand, the goal is to test interoperability, not standards
compliance, so having successfully tested GetResourceProperty ensures
that the two tested implementations can always fall back on that
operation in case ""GetMultipleRP" or "QueryRP" fail.

Having said that, I opt for removing the respective sections from the
Interop testing document.

Cheers,
Michel

- --
Michel <dot> Drescher <at> uk <dot> fujitsu <dot> com
Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe
+44 20 8606 4834
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFIoxok0lMZTNKw4QRAhn8AKCrlxZKXfNTYwzLbjkcTn1Pum9DmwCdEyfu
KoXtUwptO2Gryb88aBEnR8I=
=RcP0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----