IRC log of databinding on 2006-10-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:34:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #databinding
07:34:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to
07:46:50 [pauld]
pauld has joined #databinding
07:47:03 [pauld]
trackbot, start meeting
07:47:05 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
07:47:07 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be DBWG
07:47:07 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, trackbot
07:47:08 [trackbot]
Meeting: Databinding WG Teleconference
07:47:08 [trackbot]
Date: 05 October 2006
07:47:40 [pauld]
Meeting: Databinding F2F Meeting, Sofia Antipolis
07:47:48 [pauld]
Chair: paul
07:48:06 [pauld]
Present: pauld, gcowe, yves, jonc
07:51:00 [pauld]
07:51:16 [pauld]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
07:51:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pauld
07:51:31 [pauld]
RRSAgent, make logs member-visible
08:13:56 [Yves]
Yves: we can ask other developpers (in the spec) a call for test results
08:14:28 [Yves]
and if we should put such gathered results in our pages, we should flag them as contributed
08:32:42 [pauld]
Pauld: if we have a call for logs, what process do we need to accept contributions?
08:33:08 [pauld]
ACTION: ylafon to investigate IP and process about contribution of logs from third parties
08:33:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-67 - Investigate IP and process about contribution of logs from third parties [on Yves Lafon - due 2006-10-12].
08:43:56 [pauld]
Topic: Review of Outstanding Issues
08:43:59 [JonC]
JonC has joined #databinding
08:47:25 [pauld]
pauld: we need text to explain ISSUE-37 etc that we may offer more than one pattern for a particular structure, eg absence of data, but we don't offer semantics or how to choose the best pattern on offer
08:51:06 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-20 - Extension of Collections
08:51:20 [pauld]
pauld: useful versioning pattern based on xs:any
08:51:32 [pauld]
jonc: xs:any is Advanced
08:52:02 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-20 as an Advanced Pattern
08:53:28 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-31 enumerated restriction types
08:55:45 [pauld]
pauld: DecimalEnumeration fails in Mono
08:55:56 [pauld]
jonc: what about the rest of them?
09:02:49 [pauld]
pauld: much the same for mono, but SOAP4r copes with them all
09:06:13 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-20 as Advanced
09:33:59 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-45 attribute use optional/required
09:34:27 [pauld]
pauld: do we have examples?
09:38:53 [pauld]
gcowe: we have AttributeRequired and AttributeFixed
09:39:19 [pauld]
pauld: works with tools i've looked at so far, schema-first
09:39:51 [pauld]
09:41:15 [pauld]
jon: will toolkits bounce invalid documents, probably not an issue
09:41:44 [pauld]
pauld: and will tools prevent someone not sending it
09:42:27 [pauld]
all: seems like a generic issue, but invalid behaviour is out of scope
09:42:52 [pauld]
pauld: we can accept this as Basic and pull it out following more testing
09:43:22 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-45 as a Baisc pattern
09:43:47 [Yves]
09:55:20 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-46 Fixed Attribute values
09:55:51 [pauld]
pauld: toolkits echo valid documents ok, but don't capture the fixed value in code
09:59:49 [pauld]
yves: we need operations which do more work than echo, eg increment a number
10:03:04 [pauld]
pauld: good approach, but requires different approach for each pattern, not scalable
10:03:15 [pauld]
yves: we should call for test code
10:03:50 [pauld]
pauld: this smacks of ISSUE-28, what to do if the programming language doesn't fully support a data structure
10:04:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #databinding
10:05:04 [pauld]
pauld: in this case initialising or fixing a sting is available in most environments, but tools don't support it
10:05:54 [JonC]
10:07:00 [pauld]
pauld: ISSUE-28 doesn't sit happily here, we closed this with no action:
10:07:02 [pauld]
" Discussion around this concluded that as long as the tools do not bail out and reject the schema and allow all valid instance docs to be processed and created (even if it allows invalid docs through) then we are happy for those structures to be included in Basic Patterns. The experience of the schema author is still good..."
10:07:38 [pauld]
pauld: in this case a ruby developer has to look for the fixed value in the schema
10:08:33 [gcowe]
gcowe has joined #databinding
10:10:14 [pauld]
pauld: this reminds me of the constrain by a pattern, information is lost in code generation
10:11:03 [pauld]
jonc: good experience doesn't prevent the user from doing the right thing, but doesn't prevent you sending invalid data
10:11:19 [pauld]
yves: you need -ve testing here
10:15:14 [pauld]
pauld: unconvinced we can test this '
10:15:31 [pauld]
s/'/'black box' you have to look at the code/
10:16:07 [pauld]
pauld: we need introductory text for ISSUE-28
10:17:03 [pauld]
pauld: under the rules of ISSUE-28 this should be Basic, but lack of fixed value in generated code make me want to set this as Advanced
10:18:09 [pauld]
gcowe: you need to include the behaviour of the source code
10:18:37 [pauld]
yves: you are welcome to do more than echo
10:19:29 [pauld]
yves: seeing generated code in the test report is a requirement
10:21:14 [pauld]
pauld: i did this for SOAP4r - snippits.html, lets ask people to make sure they contribute working along with a report
10:23:03 [pauld]
pauld: so ISSUE-28 is a floor for what makes a pattern Basic, I think we can still make value judgements on a case-by-case basis
10:25:52 [pauld]
pauld: we need to make sure our text explains this
10:26:05 [pauld]
pauld: i think Fixed is an Advanced pattern
10:26:19 [pauld]
gcowe: i think it's Basic
10:26:29 [pauld]
Jonc: i think it's Basic
10:26:55 [pauld]
pauld: why do you want it basic?
10:27:04 [pauld]
jonc: nothing barfs
10:27:28 [pauld]
yves: we could make it basic and rip it out after more testing
10:28:25 [pauld]
pauld: so in this case they generate the placeholder, just don't populate it and you think that's good enough
10:29:29 [pauld]
pauld: OK we've just rehashed ISSUE-28
10:30:16 [pauld]
pauld: can live ewith either, let's have our FIRST STRAW POLL!!!!
10:31:22 [chad]
chad has joined #databinding
10:31:47 [pauld]
chad, question: options for ISSUE-46
10:31:56 [pauld]
chad, option 1: Basic pattern
10:32:05 [pauld]
chad, option 2: Advanced pattern
10:32:22 [pauld]
vote: 1,2
10:32:34 [pauld]
vote: 2,1
10:32:37 [Yves]
vote: 1,2
10:32:40 [gcowe]
vote 1
10:32:41 [JonC]
10:32:48 [pauld]
chad, count
10:32:48 [chad]
Question: options for ISSUE-46
10:32:48 [chad]
Option 1: Basic pattern (2)
10:32:48 [chad]
Option 2: Advanced pattern (1)
10:32:48 [chad]
3 voters: JonC (1),pauld (2,1),Yves (1,2)
10:32:48 [chad]
Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
10:32:49 [chad]
Candidate 1 is elected.
10:32:51 [chad]
Winner is option 1 - Basic pattern
10:33:10 [gcowe]
vote: 1
10:33:16 [pauld]
chad, count
10:33:16 [chad]
Question: options for ISSUE-46
10:33:16 [chad]
Option 1: Basic pattern (3)
10:33:16 [chad]
Option 2: Advanced pattern (1)
10:33:16 [chad]
4 voters: gcowe (1),JonC (1),pauld (2,1),Yves (1,2)
10:33:16 [chad]
Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
10:33:17 [chad]
Candidate 1 is elected.
10:33:19 [chad]
Winner is option 1 - Basic pattern
10:34:26 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSSUE-46 as an Basic pattern
10:38:15 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-67 xsi:type
10:38:43 [pauld]
pauld: known limitation of many tools, e.g. ADB 1.0:
10:39:03 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-67 as Advanced
10:41:09 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-58 anonymous complexType
10:41:43 [pauld]
jonc: we had this internally within BT but failed to work with BEA Weblogic 8.1
10:42:33 [pauld]
pauld: Paul Keil has this as being well supported. ISTR it not working well, do we need more evidence?
10:43:38 [pauld]
pauld: very common pattern, do we want to do this?
10:46:14 [pauld]
pauld: is that an easily fixed bug in one toolkit, or an indication of a widespread problem?
10:47:55 [pauld]
pauld: it's no the end of the world for a pattern to be advanced
10:50:58 [pauld]
pauld: our experience is venetian blind works well, but should we discount Russian Doll etc? I'm attracted to the minium to declare victory, but it's easier to take things out than add them in later
10:51:13 [pauld]
.. LUNCH ..
12:12:54 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-64: Union of SimpleTypes
12:13:16 [pauld]
we have an example 'JeanSize'
12:13:34 [pauld]
pauld: can we think about making this based upon the pattern name?
12:13:59 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE=64 Union of simple types as an Advanced pattern
12:14:38 [gcowe]
gcowe has joined #databinding
12:19:12 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-48 Local Elements defined by Reference
12:19:27 [pauld]
pauld: implicitly means global elements
12:19:41 [pauld]
works with toolkits AFAICT
12:19:53 [pauld]
jonc: it's how all doc/lit WSDLs work
12:20:07 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-48 as a Basic pattern
12:21:00 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-60 Local Attributes defined by Reference
12:21:07 [pauld]
pauld: deja-vu!
12:21:26 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-60 as a basic Pattern
12:23:39 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-56: simpleType resricted with min/max facets
12:23:48 [pauld]
pauld: introduces simpleTypes
12:23:57 [pauld]
jonc: chad! chad!
12:24:58 [pauld]
pauld: not like 'fixed'; value space of valid values greater than one
12:25:30 [pauld]
pauld: explains why ISSUE-28 is a value judgement
12:28:47 [pauld]
pauld: SOAP4r barfs at runtime
12:29:04 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-56 as an Advanced pattern
12:33:34 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-68 xs:import of Schema 1.0 namespace
12:33:51 [pauld]
George sent mail:
12:34:14 [pauld]
pauld: so not WS-I BP compliant, and we want to be compatible with the WS-I BP
12:37:24 [pauld]
pauld: OK, we need to think about a reference to the BP
12:37:40 [pauld]
pauld: how do we close this issue? Advanced or don't do it?
12:39:17 [pauld]
pauld: what's the use-case? maybe picking up a schema with this cruft in it?
12:40:17 [pauld]
pauld: is it a problem for Advanced?
12:42:19 [pauld]
discussion of models of how WSDLs get built
12:42:38 [pauld]
jonc: we are in the Web services space, this isn't useful but not BP compliant
12:42:48 [pauld]
pauld: do I go to the BP and raise this as an issue?
12:45:50 [pauld]
pauld: OK mark it as Advanced for now, I'll engaage the WS-I
12:46:24 [pauld]
ACTION: pdowney to raise an issue on ISSUE-68 with the WS-I Basic Profile WG
12:46:24 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-68 - Raise an issue on ISSUE-68 with the WS-I Basic Profile WG [on Paul Downey - due 2006-10-12].
12:49:07 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-66 Enumeration based on a SimpleType
12:49:28 [pauld]
jonc: our example is based upon an Advanced pattern, so makes this Advanced?
12:49:45 [pauld]
.. unless we come up with a simpler example
12:53:53 [pauld]
jonc: does it make sense to have an enum of an enum?
12:54:08 [pauld]
pauld: or do we have other facets?
12:55:32 [pauld]
pauld: if you're writing a schema you can do this in one type, Basic is for people authoring schemas in the main
12:55:57 [pauld]
.. however Origo do this and it seems to work in their toolkits
12:57:27 [pauld]
gcowe: our use of this is possibly historical
12:59:27 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-66 as an advanced pattern, needs more examples
13:09:45 [pauld]
s/historical/historical but fundamental/
13:10:43 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-15 Null datatype pattern as used by ASN.1 and others
13:11:00 [pauld]
pauld: split second pattern as ISSUE-70
13:11:36 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-15 accpeted empty sequence as a Basic pattern
13:12:01 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-10 Mapping Element and Type names
13:12:06 [pauld]
pauld: issue of death
13:25:48 [pauld]
13:36:07 [pauld]
pauld: walks through the history
13:36:34 [pauld]
yves: for Advanced this is a must and can be easily implemented, comments for original names etc
13:37:56 [pauld]
pauld: proposal for way forward: split issue into concrete patterns for name formats, python rules, includes '-', Kanji set, etc and process them as business as usual
13:46:46 [pauld]
ACTION: pauld to build several examples based upon existing document for ISSUE-10
13:46:46 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - pauld
13:46:58 [pauld]
ACTION: pdowney to build several examples based upon existing document for ISSUE-10
13:46:59 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-69 - Build several examples based upon existing document for ISSUE-10 [on Paul Downey - due 2006-10-12].
13:57:28 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-55 simple abstract substitutionGroup pattern
13:57:42 [pauld]
jonc: leave it open, we need a concrete example / pattern
13:59:52 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-38 xs:any processContents value of 'skip'
14:00:05 [pauld]
gcowe: we have examples and patterns for this
14:00:19 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-38 as Advanced
14:03:28 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-55 as Advanced, needs example
14:04:34 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-50 is xs:anyType an Advanced pattern?
14:04:49 [pauld]
pauld: well duh
14:05:08 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-50 as an Advanced pattern
14:05:48 [pauld]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
14:05:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pauld
14:07:03 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-25 Map and Hash Patterns
14:07:32 [pauld]
pauld: we need the concrete patterns and examples from the input document
14:09:24 [pauld]
ACTION: pauld to explode concrete patterns for ISSUE-25 hash and map
14:09:24 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - pauld
14:09:39 [pauld]
ACTION: pdowney to explode concrete patterns for ISSUE-25 hash and map
14:09:39 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-70 - Explode concrete patterns for ISSUE-25 hash and map [on Paul Downey - due 2006-10-12].
14:10:35 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-17 Advice for representing a duration
14:12:05 [pauld]
pauld: we don't offer advice on which pattern to use, apart from grouping. Duration is an advanced datatype, leave it at that.
14:12:21 [pauld]
pauld: do we accept duration is good for durations?
14:13:08 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-17 with no action
14:14:36 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-58 anonymous complexType
14:14:57 [pauld]
RESOLUTION close ISSUE-58 as an Advanced pattern
14:17:48 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-54 Sequence of choice Pattern
14:18:08 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-58 as an Advanced pattern
14:18:22 [pauld]
14:20:29 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-59 attributeGroup pattern
14:20:48 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-59 as an Advanced pattern
14:22:12 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-14 xs:default handling
14:25:39 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: accept ISSUE-14 as an Advanced pattern
14:25:46 [pauld]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
14:25:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pauld
14:46:15 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-2 TestSuite
14:46:28 [pauld]
pauld demos where we are
15:04:44 [Yves]
ACTION: pdowney to publish logfile format
15:04:44 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-71 - Publish logfile format [on Paul Downey - due 2006-10-12].
15:33:24 [pauld]
discussion of tetsuite process
15:36:51 [pauld]
pauld: genit generates palatable examples.wsdl, generates code, implements functions, deploys, runs service
15:37:32 [pauld]
pauld: runit takes our example soap11 instance documents, fires them at the service
15:38:01 [pauld]
pauld: result is a log file 'output.xml' and a HTML document of the implemented code 'snippits.html'
15:43:02 [pauld]
pauld: we then need to generate a results.xml which checks the request versus response
15:50:55 [pauld]
pauld: Ajith suggests XMLUnit, looks cool for the 95 case, but we still need hints for comparing floats etc
15:51:05 [pauld]
yves: also useful if we have +1 test cases
15:51:40 [pauld]
pauld: produced a Schematron generator, but too heavyweight for just comparing documents
15:52:10 [pauld]
yves: XMLUnit looks interesting, especially the 'exact' then 'similar' match approach, I'd like to pick up this work
15:52:19 [pauld]
pauld: does a happy dance
15:52:46 [pauld]
pauld: will work with George on Axis, etc logs
15:52:57 [pauld]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
15:52:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pauld
16:02:25 [pauld]
rrasgent, set logs public
16:03:19 [pauld]
rrsagent, set logs world
16:03:32 [pauld]
s/rrasgent, set logs public//
16:03:38 [pauld]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
16:03:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pauld