[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wsvt-dev] Re: wsvt-dev digest, Vol 1 #23 - 6 msgs
- From: David Lauzon <lauzond@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:56:08 -0400
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Thank you for your interest.
RE:a) - By end of year, we will have validation against:
BP1.1 and SSBP1.0 (Simple Soap Bindings Profile)
AP1.0 (Attachments Profile)
and and early staged version of BSP (Basic Security Profile
related to clear text ONLY).
- Also incremental changes to the Message Monitor to transform it
into a debugger (as time permits).
- UDDI test harness to exercise a web service.
RE: b) It is currently in IBM's WebSphere Studio.
We contribute the WS-I related code to the WS-I organization. So
I imagine that there are quite a few products out there using the
source at least indirectly.
RE: c) There is a lot of talk about contributions, especially within WS-I
membership, however companies seem to take the "wait and see"
approach -- "maybe it will all get done without us using up any
of our resources". I think if the test-tools do not get updated
in a timely manner with respect to new profiles, then companies
will commit their resources. So curiously enough its a catch-22,
if our validators are not getting updated in a timely-manner to
reflect the new specifications , then we will get more
RE: d) If you mean by an independent toolkit,that they become more
pluggable, then the answer is yes. We should be able to easily
specify within the toolkit what xml parser that would like to use,
which wsdl validator etc. Currently we are dependent on specific
If you mean independent of eclipse, well -- this is an eclipse
project. The org.eclipse.wsi.test.tools plugin can also act as
a standalone non-eclipse tool - because that is how we are
currently contributing to WS-I.
Currently in the WSDL validator, we validate the cml document first,
then check it against the WSDL 1.1 spec and then finally against the
WS-I Basic Profile. It really does make sense to do it in that
However, we should have the option to easily turn off any level of
validation. Currently the WS-I validation assumes that the
wsdl/message has already been tested against the underlying
specifications. In our tool, we would like to provide all levels
of validation and the ability to turn any number of the levels off.
Again, thank you for your interest. I would definitely like to setup a call
with you. I'm a firm believer in: the more contributors, the more useful
It's kind of quiet here. After playing with wsvt a little bit, I think
we've got a very good tool with a code base of quality here. However it's
still not product-ready yet. I've reported a few bugs and some enhancement
I have a few general questions here:
a) what's the plan for wsvt down the road, say, by the end of this year?
b) do we have any idea about who or which product is using wsvt?
c) why is there such low traffic here? wsvt has been mentioned a lot in
wsdl community. Buzz is there but momentum has not been generated yet, or
at least not reflected here.
d) is there any plan to make wsvt as an independent toolkit?
we're in the process of evaluation wsvt, if decided to go with it, we might
be able to commit significant resource to this project. Is there any way of
discussing all these, say by concall or something?
thanks in advance,
David M. Lauzon
XML Tooling, ADTC Architecture
Internal Mail: D3/EAB/8200/MKM
Phone: (905) 413 - 2180 TL: 8/969 - 2180 FAX: (905) 413 - 4920
Internet: lauzond@xxxxxxxxxx Notes: David Lauzon/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA