Steve Loughran wrote:
Can I also add my current thinking on how the standardisation process can benefit from being test-driven.
hi, this is an interesting article and i agree with the premises as it makes easier to know when a spec is implemented and track an implementation progress. however i think calling it Behavior Driven Specification (BDS similarly to BDD [1]) instead of TDS may better capture the intent and help to acid confusion with software writing - it is not really about writing tests but defining and asserting behaviors that are defined in a spec. best, alek [1] http://daveastels.com/index.php?p=5 http://jroller.com/page/obie/20051017
Compared to a lot of other standards we are fairly test-centric, though we have put off defining most of our tests until after the specifications were put in the pipeline.
The DAWG group looked at here wants all its test documents first. All issues must come with a test document. This is something we could consider for all CDL issues; its a bit harder for the others.
I've already been circulating this doc with people in the W3C, in particular I've been giving the WS-A group a hard time for having no tests, and the TAG people a hard time for letting the WS-A ship without any tests. As such I am now engaging with them on what makes good tests for WS-A. Send me your addressing traces and I will forward them on to the relevant people. If we get our addresses into the formal definition of WS-A compliance, then we can be sure that at least our apps will interoperate.
-steve
-- The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay