Jacques,
This "timeout period" is something that we need to
integrate into our
Test Driver. I was wondering if the CPA as defined would provide
enough
information to the Test Driver ( assuming that it parses some
"base" CPA
( or "mini-cpa" for configuration ) to determine what that
"timeout period" should be before
checking the message queue ( or some persistent storage structure
).
Will the "base CPA" contain all of the required
information for the Test Driver
to compute its own "timeout period" before checking for
received messages, or
will we have to assign some arbitrary value?
1) Regarding your other comments for the 3 abstract tests.. I
agree that <Condition>
should be changed to <Precondition>. It has a more direct
meaning in a testing sense.
2) I will fix the typos on the
"quotes"
3) Regarding either :
(a) Using predifined CPAs for the "configurator" action,
or
(b) using CPA "templates" and manipulating them like any
other message content...
I would favor (b) simply for the expediency. Or at least, I think
that we should leave that possibility open in our implementation
design. That way, if the number of CPA templates becomes
cumbersome, we could treat the CPA
as just another payload, and manipulate that XML payload template content
the same way we would manipulate
an XML payload template for say ... ebXML Registry
testing.
Comments?
Mike
At 11:57 AM 10/1/2002 -0700, Jacques Durand wrote:
Mike:
review of your 3 test cases - mostly details.
Note: should we set also some timeout parameter for each test case? or test step?
(e.g. when we count duplicates, and retries, we have to know when to stop waiting...)
regards,
Jacques
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kass [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 10:10 AM
To: Jacques Durand; ''
Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic] next call this Monday
To all,
Here is XML representation of the 3 selected abstract tests. I will
document/comment this for a clearer
description. This is for an initial look at structure and underlying
object model.
Mike
