ISSUE-36

Tool selection for testing of basic pattern assertions

State:
CLOSED
Product:
Testsuite
Raised by:
Jonathan Calladine
Opened on:
2006-04-21
Description:
On the call this week we briefly touched upon what our representative set of 
databinding tools would be that we tested against to formally prove the design 
patterns that would be included in the Basic Patterns document. This does not 
need to be a exhaustive list but for our own confidence it ought to cover many 
of the most popular tools across several languages (its not just just .net and 
java out there....)
 
For discussion then, this is what I would choose currently to fit our own core 
tools and those of our customers. 

Apache Axis 1.3 Final
Apache Axis2 (latest 0.95?) 
BEA WLS 8.1 (clientgen and servicegen)
BEA WLS 9.0 (clientgen and servicegen)
IBM WAS 5.1
IBM WAS 6.0
JAXB 2.0
JAXB 1.1
XMLBeans 2.1

 
Microsoft .Net 2.0
Microsoft .Net 1.1
 
Axis CPP 1.6
gSoap 2.7
Rogue Wave Leif 2.5
 
SOAP:Lite
Oracle PL/SQL XML utilities (up for discussion but we have users of this)


The rationale for the selection could well be the largest commercial and open 
source tools for a language/platform. The multiple versions of these tools in 
the list reflect the current user base as well as the latest offerings in many 
cases. I think the list above needs to be reviewed and possibly balanced with 
more scripting language tools.

The testing of our basic patterns with these tools justifies/validates the 
selection we make and in the border cases provides evidence as to why certain 
xml schema constructs may not be present in the basic patterns doc.

WI reliase that all of this may be contentious but what thoughts do others 
have for a wish list of tools? 

Regards, JonC
Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-36: Tool selection for testing of basic pattern assertions (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2006-04-21)
  2. Re: ISSUE-36: Tool selection for testing of basic pattern assertions (from Paul.V.Biron@kp.org on 2006-04-21)
  3. RE: ISSUE-36: Tool selection for testing of basic pattern assertions (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-04-23)
  4. RE: ISSUE-36: Tool selection for testing of basic pattern assertions (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-04-23)
  5. RE: ISSUE-36: Tool selection for testing of basic pattern assertions (from Paul.V.Biron@kp.org on 2006-04-24)
  6. Re: ISSUE-36: Tool selection for testing of basic pattern assertions (from petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com on 2006-04-25)
  7. RE: ISSUE-36: Tool selection for testing of basic pattern assertions (from jon.calladine@bt.com on 2006-04-26)
  8. Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 2 May 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-04-28)
  9. Minutes from XML Schema Patterns for Databinding call 2 May 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-05-02)
  10. RE: Minutes from XML Schema Patterns for Databinding call 2 May 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-05-02)
  11. Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 9 May 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-05-05)
  12. Minutes from XML Schema Patterns for Databinding call 9 May 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-05-09)
  13. Re: Minutes from XML Schema Patterns for Databinding call 9 May 2006 (from petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com on 2006-05-10)
  14. Minutes: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding F2F 31st July - 1st August 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-08-01)

Related notes:

2006-08-01: Closed at August 2006 f2f. Pragmatic decision to use what tools are available to us and what tools are important to the members of the working group.