TOPIC:

Hi all



I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
<www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for TTCN-3 files while
others use "ttcn3" string. Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard
view? Both?



Best regards,

/Pavel

Hi Pavel,

The amazing answer is none.
The standard does not enforce any file extension.
I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to different
file extensions being used by different tools.

Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?

Stephan

>

---

Original Message

---

> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
> members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
> To: TTCN3
> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at
> www.ttcn-3.org <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an
> extension for TTCN-3 files while others use "ttcn3" string.
> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> /Pavel
>

Hello,

just a guess but it might have something to do with the fact that in
some environments file extensions are really cosmetic, e.g. Unix/Linux
systems.

Best regards,
Risto

>

---

Original Message

---

>From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext
>Stephan Schulz
>Sent: 10 January, 2007 17:54
>To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
>Hi Pavel,
>
>The amazing answer is none.
>The standard does not enforce any file extension.
>I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to
>different file extensions being used by different tools.
>
>Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>
>Stephan
>
>>

---

Original Message

---

>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
>> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
>> To: TTCN3
>> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>>
>>
>> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
>> <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
>TTCN-3 files
>> while others use "ttcn3" string.
>> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> /Pavel
>>
>

Morning

I remember seeing some third extension that I cannot recall, perhaps .t3,
so I could be wrong. I remember writing about this some years ago.
The standard does not also say anything how the modules and files are related..

you could put all your modules in a single file, or all in separate file,
and this was a potential annoyance between tools since I remember some years
ago some tools required a single module within a file with the same name,
and some accepted several modules, so it might have required user to
chop a multi-module file into several single-module files to make them
usable.

Antti

>

---

Original Message

---

> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Risto Teittinen
> Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2007 19:10
> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
> Hello,
>
> just a guess but it might have something to do with the fact that in
> some environments file extensions are really cosmetic, e.g. Unix/Linux
> systems.
>
> Best regards,
> Risto
>
> >

---

Original Message

---

> >From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
> >members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext
> >Stephan Schulz
> >Sent: 10 January, 2007 17:54
> >To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> >Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
> >
> >Hi Pavel,
> >
> >The amazing answer is none.
> >The standard does not enforce any file extension.
> >I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to
> >different file extensions being used by different tools.
> >
> >Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
> >
> >Stephan
> >
> >>

---

Original Message

---

> >> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
> >> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
> >> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
> >> To: TTCN3
> >> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
> >> <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
> >TTCN-3 files
> >> while others use "ttcn3" string.
> >> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> /Pavel
> >>
> >

Dear all,

in my memory: as there was no clear favorite for the way modules are being
stored and how files relate to modules - TTCN-3 is not only open to whatever
file extension, but allows also to store several modules in one file (like
e.g. IDL - but to my best knowledge no tool vendor goes for this option) -
the decision was to leave it up to the vendors. In result, the file
extension is typically configurable.

Cheers, Ina.

>

---

Original Message

---

> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
> members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Stephan Schulz
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:54 PM
> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
> Hi Pavel,
>
> The amazing answer is none.
> The standard does not enforce any file extension.
> I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead
> to different file extensions being used by different tools.
>
> Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>
> Stephan
>
> >

---

Original Message

---

> > From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
> members only
> > [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
> > Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
> > To: TTCN3
> > Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
> >
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> >
> >
> > I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
> > <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
> TTCN-3 files
> > while others use "ttcn3" string.
> > Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > /Pavel
> >
>

Hi Ina et al.!

In Telelogic TAU Tester there was (at least a few years ago) a
possibility to structure the code either in files by module or by
modules in one single file. This was however a few years ago so this
might have changed.

Is there a reason why this is not a good idea (just out of curiosity)?

BR

/Stefan

---

Original Message

---

From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
[This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Schieferdecker, Ina
Sent: torsdag den 11 januari 2007 12:25
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension

Dear all,

in my memory: as there was no clear favorite for the way modules are
being
stored and how files relate to modules - TTCN-3 is not only open to
whatever
file extension, but allows also to store several modules in one file
(like
e.g. IDL - but to my best knowledge no tool vendor goes for this option)
-
the decision was to leave it up to the vendors. In result, the file
extension is typically configurable.

Cheers, Ina.

>

---

Original Message

---

> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
> members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Stephan Schulz
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:54 PM
> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
> Hi Pavel,
>
> The amazing answer is none.
> The standard does not enforce any file extension.
> I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead
> to different file extensions being used by different tools.
>
> Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>
> Stephan
>
> >

---

Original Message

---

> > From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
> members only
> > [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
> > Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
> > To: TTCN3
> > Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
> >
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> >
> >
> > I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
> > <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
> TTCN-3 files
> > while others use "ttcn3" string.
> > Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > /Pavel
> >
>

Hello,

everything that has been said so far is right. The third extension was

.3mp

So we have
.ttcn3
.ttcn
.3mp

While the standard does not define any relationship between the
specification and its storage format we (the tool vendors) had to come
up with a solution. Because obviously the specifications had to be store
somehow somewhere.

We try to implement the tools in a way that they are able to cope with
all possibilities. The user has to decide whether we have achieved our
goal.

I would like to note, that even if the tools would be able to handle all
different ways that have been discussed here, I believe the relationship
between the specification and its storage format will be a moving
target. (Example: Storing test specifications in model repositories, etc.)

So I am very keen to see future ideas/requirements on this topic.

So long.

Theo


Antti Hyrkkanen schrieb:
> Morning
>
> I remember seeing some third extension that I cannot recall, perhaps .t3,
> so I could be wrong. I remember writing about this some years ago.
> The standard does not also say anything how the modules and files are
related..
>
> you could put all your modules in a single file, or all in separate file,
> and this was a potential annoyance between tools since I remember some years
> ago some tools required a single module within a file with the same name,
> and some accepted several modules, so it might have required user to
> chop a multi-module file into several single-module files to make them
> usable.
>
> Antti
>
>>

---

Original Message

---

>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Risto Teittinen
>> Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2007 19:10
>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> just a guess but it might have something to do with the fact that in
>> some environments file extensions are really cosmetic, e.g. Unix/Linux
>> systems.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Risto
>>
>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>>> members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext
>>> Stephan Schulz
>>> Sent: 10 January, 2007 17:54
>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> The amazing answer is none.
>>> The standard does not enforce any file extension.
>>> I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to
>>> different file extensions being used by different tools.
>>>
>>> Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>>>
>>> Stephan
>>>
>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
>>>> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
>>>> To: TTCN3
>>>> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
>>>> <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
>>> TTCN-3 files
>>>> while others use "ttcn3" string.
>>>> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> /Pavel
>>>>
>

Theo

I like .3mp. This extension can well fit into the future 3GPP LTE /SAE
test suites.

Shicheng

---

Original Message

---

From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
[This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
Sent: 11 January 2007 12:52
To: TTCN3
Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension

Hello,

everything that has been said so far is right. The third extension was

.3mp

So we have
.ttcn3
.ttcn
.3mp

While the standard does not define any relationship between the
specification and its storage format we (the tool vendors) had to come
up with a solution. Because obviously the specifications had to be store

somehow somewhere.

We try to implement the tools in a way that they are able to cope with
all possibilities. The user has to decide whether we have achieved our
goal.

I would like to note, that even if the tools would be able to handle all

different ways that have been discussed here, I believe the relationship

between the specification and its storage format will be a moving
target. (Example: Storing test specifications in model repositories,
etc.)

So I am very keen to see future ideas/requirements on this topic.

So long.

Theo


Antti Hyrkkanen schrieb:
> Morning
>
> I remember seeing some third extension that I cannot recall, perhaps
.t3,
> so I could be wrong. I remember writing about this some years ago.
> The standard does not also say anything how the modules and files are
related..
>
> you could put all your modules in a single file, or all in separate
file,
> and this was a potential annoyance between tools since I remember some
years
> ago some tools required a single module within a file with the same
name,
> and some accepted several modules, so it might have required user to
> chop a multi-module file into several single-module files to make them

> usable.
>
> Antti
>
>>

---

Original Message

---

>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Risto Teittinen
>> Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2007 19:10
>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> just a guess but it might have something to do with the fact that in
>> some environments file extensions are really cosmetic, e.g.
Unix/Linux
>> systems.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Risto
>>
>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>>> members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext
>>> Stephan Schulz
>>> Sent: 10 January, 2007 17:54
>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> The amazing answer is none.
>>> The standard does not enforce any file extension.
>>> I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to
>>> different file extensions being used by different tools.
>>>
>>> Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>>>
>>> Stephan
>>>
>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members
only
>>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
>>>> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
>>>> To: TTCN3
>>>> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
>>>> <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
>>> TTCN-3 files
>>>> while others use "ttcn3" string.
>>>> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> /Pavel
>>>>
>

Hello Schicheng,

>I like .3mp. This extension can well fit into the future 3GPP LTE /SAE
>test suites.

There is a slight historical detail that would make any file extension that
includes the letters mp a bad idea. The name mp was used in TTCN-2 and
although I forgot the meaning for the p, the m had to do with the concept of
machine interchange format. In theory, no human was supposed to look at the
content of these mp files. The reality was that lots of people not only did
but sometimes even did some substantial programming in that format.

After all the efforts that we put in to come up with a human readable core
language, I think that to use this machine oriented name for file extensions
would be somewhat ironic.

Ttcn3 looks like a good de facto standard to me.

All the best.

Bernard Stepien

---

Original Message

---

From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
[This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
Sent: 11 January 2007 12:52
To: TTCN3
Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension

Hello,

everything that has been said so far is right. The third extension was

.3mp

So we have
.ttcn3
.ttcn
.3mp

While the standard does not define any relationship between the
specification and its storage format we (the tool vendors) had to come
up with a solution. Because obviously the specifications had to be store

somehow somewhere.

We try to implement the tools in a way that they are able to cope with
all possibilities. The user has to decide whether we have achieved our
goal.

I would like to note, that even if the tools would be able to handle all

different ways that have been discussed here, I believe the relationship

between the specification and its storage format will be a moving
target. (Example: Storing test specifications in model repositories,
etc.)

So I am very keen to see future ideas/requirements on this topic.

So long.

Theo


Antti Hyrkkanen schrieb:
> Morning
>
> I remember seeing some third extension that I cannot recall, perhaps
.t3,
> so I could be wrong. I remember writing about this some years ago.
> The standard does not also say anything how the modules and files are
related..
>
> you could put all your modules in a single file, or all in separate
file,
> and this was a potential annoyance between tools since I remember some
years
> ago some tools required a single module within a file with the same
name,
> and some accepted several modules, so it might have required user to
> chop a multi-module file into several single-module files to make them

> usable.
>
> Antti
>
>>

---

Original Message

---

>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Risto Teittinen
>> Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2007 19:10
>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> just a guess but it might have something to do with the fact that in
>> some environments file extensions are really cosmetic, e.g.
Unix/Linux
>> systems.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Risto
>>
>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>>> members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext
>>> Stephan Schulz
>>> Sent: 10 January, 2007 17:54
>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> The amazing answer is none.
>>> The standard does not enforce any file extension.
>>> I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to
>>> different file extensions being used by different tools.
>>>
>>> Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>>>
>>> Stephan
>>>
>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members
only
>>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
>>>> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
>>>> To: TTCN3
>>>> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
>>>> <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
>>> TTCN-3 files
>>>> while others use "ttcn3" string.
>>>> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> /Pavel
>>>>
>

Hello,

---

Original Message

---

From: "Bernard Stepien"
> although I forgot the meaning for the p, the m had to do with the concept
> of
> machine interchange format.

.mp was for "machine-processable", AFAIK

Cheers,

Krzysztof Brzezinski
Warsaw Univ. of Technology

Hi Bernard,

mp = machine processable

So you are totally right with your argumentation. And from my personal
point of view 3mp is to close to mp3.

When I write TTCN-3 code (independent of which editor I use ;-) I use
.ttcn3.

Best regards, Theo

Bernard Stepien schrieb:
> Hello Schicheng,
>
>> I like .3mp. This extension can well fit into the future 3GPP LTE /SAE
>> test suites.
>
> There is a slight historical detail that would make any file extension that
> includes the letters mp a bad idea. The name mp was used in TTCN-2 and
> although I forgot the meaning for the p, the m had to do with the concept of
> machine interchange format. In theory, no human was supposed to look at the
> content of these mp files. The reality was that lots of people not only did
> but sometimes even did some substantial programming in that format.
>
> After all the efforts that we put in to come up with a human readable core
> language, I think that to use this machine oriented name for file extensions
> would be somewhat ironic.
>
> Ttcn3 looks like a good de facto standard to me.
>
> All the best.
>
> Bernard Stepien
>
>
>
>
>
>

---

Original Message

---

> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
> Sent: 11 January 2007 12:52
> To: TTCN3
> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
> Hello,
>
> everything that has been said so far is right. The third extension was
>
> .3mp
>
> So we have
> .ttcn3
> .ttcn
> .3mp
>
> While the standard does not define any relationship between the
> specification and its storage format we (the tool vendors) had to come
> up with a solution. Because obviously the specifications had to be store
>
> somehow somewhere.
>
> We try to implement the tools in a way that they are able to cope with
> all possibilities. The user has to decide whether we have achieved our
> goal.
>
> I would like to note, that even if the tools would be able to handle all
>
> different ways that have been discussed here, I believe the relationship
>
> between the specification and its storage format will be a moving
> target. (Example: Storing test specifications in model repositories,
> etc.)
>
> So I am very keen to see future ideas/requirements on this topic.
>
> So long.
>
> Theo
>
>
> Antti Hyrkkanen schrieb:
>> Morning
>>
>> I remember seeing some third extension that I cannot recall, perhaps
> .t3,
>> so I could be wrong. I remember writing about this some years ago.
>> The standard does not also say anything how the modules and files are
> related..
>> you could put all your modules in a single file, or all in separate
> file,
>> and this was a potential annoyance between tools since I remember some
> years
>> ago some tools required a single module within a file with the same
> name,
>> and some accepted several modules, so it might have required user to
>> chop a multi-module file into several single-module files to make them
>
>> usable.
>>
>> Antti
>>
>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Risto Teittinen
>>> Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2007 19:10
>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> just a guess but it might have something to do with the fact that in
>>> some environments file extensions are really cosmetic, e.g.
> Unix/Linux
>>> systems.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Risto
>>>
>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>>>> members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext
>>>> Stephan Schulz
>>>> Sent: 10 January, 2007 17:54
>>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>
>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>>
>>>> The amazing answer is none.
>>>> The standard does not enforce any file extension.
>>>> I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to
>>>> different file extensions being used by different tools.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>>>>
>>>> Stephan
>>>>
>>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members
> only
>>>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
>>>>> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
>>>>> To: TTCN3
>>>>> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
>>>>> <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
>>>> TTCN-3 files
>>>>> while others use "ttcn3" string.
>>>>> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> /Pavel
>>>>>
>

Hello all,
If I am not wrong.......mp stands for "Machine Processable".
And I totally agree with Risto's reasoning about file extensions that in
most Unix/Linux environments, the file extensions are cosmetic.
I have also seen engineers using .asn file extensions for files which have
the 3GPP ASN definitions specifically.

Br,
Arvinder

---

Original Message

---

From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
[This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Bernard Stepien
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:19 PM
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension

Hello Schicheng,

>I like .3mp. This extension can well fit into the future 3GPP LTE /SAE
>test suites.

There is a slight historical detail that would make any file extension that
includes the letters mp a bad idea. The name mp was used in TTCN-2 and
although I forgot the meaning for the p, the m had to do with the concept of
machine interchange format. In theory, no human was supposed to look at the
content of these mp files. The reality was that lots of people not only did
but sometimes even did some substantial programming in that format.

After all the efforts that we put in to come up with a human readable core
language, I think that to use this machine oriented name for file extensions
would be somewhat ironic.

Ttcn3 looks like a good de facto standard to me.

All the best.

Bernard Stepien

---

Original Message

---

From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
[This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
Sent: 11 January 2007 12:52
To: TTCN3
Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension

Hello,

everything that has been said so far is right. The third extension was

.3mp

So we have
.ttcn3
.ttcn
.3mp

While the standard does not define any relationship between the
specification and its storage format we (the tool vendors) had to come up
with a solution. Because obviously the specifications had to be store

somehow somewhere.

We try to implement the tools in a way that they are able to cope with all
possibilities. The user has to decide whether we have achieved our goal.

I would like to note, that even if the tools would be able to handle all

different ways that have been discussed here, I believe the relationship

between the specification and its storage format will be a moving target.
(Example: Storing test specifications in model repositories,
etc.)

So I am very keen to see future ideas/requirements on this topic.

So long.

Theo


Antti Hyrkkanen schrieb:
> Morning
>
> I remember seeing some third extension that I cannot recall, perhaps
.t3,
> so I could be wrong. I remember writing about this some years ago.
> The standard does not also say anything how the modules and files are
related..
>
> you could put all your modules in a single file, or all in separate
file,
> and this was a potential annoyance between tools since I remember some
years
> ago some tools required a single module within a file with the same
name,
> and some accepted several modules, so it might have required user to
> chop a multi-module file into several single-module files to make them

> usable.
>
> Antti
>
>>

---

Original Message

---

>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Risto Teittinen
>> Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2007 19:10
>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> just a guess but it might have something to do with the fact that in
>> some environments file extensions are really cosmetic, e.g.
Unix/Linux
>> systems.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Risto
>>
>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Stephan Schulz
>>> Sent: 10 January, 2007 17:54
>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> The amazing answer is none.
>>> The standard does not enforce any file extension.
>>> I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to
>>> different file extensions being used by different tools.
>>>
>>> Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>>>
>>> Stephan
>>>
>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members
only
>>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
>>>> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
>>>> To: TTCN3
>>>> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
>>>> <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
>>> TTCN-3 files
>>>> while others use "ttcn3" string.
>>>> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> /Pavel
>>>>
>

Hi Bernard and Theo

Thank you for the answers.
Exactly for the same historical reason I like 3mp. I have a few thoughts
and would like to share with you.

You may have known, we had a discussion at the last TTCN3 user
conference about the TTCN3 survival in the next 10 years. We all hope
so. One of the key issues to help is to enlarge the user horizon. And I
believe, the current TTCN2 user group is larger than TTCN3 one. The same
is probably true for the revenues.

I see my job in the active_ttcn3 is to bring the TTCN2 users to TTCN3.
Many things will be done in 2007 and 2008. I need also your helps to
lower the transition barriers for the mass of the TTCN2 engineers in the
test industry.

Similar to the creation of TTCN3, we didn't change TTCN, why can TTCN3
source file extension not be called .3mp? You could invent a new meaning
for mp in the TTCN3 context.

Best regards
Shicheng

---

Original Message

---

From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
[This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
Sent: 11 January 2007 14:21
To: TTCN3
Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension

Hi Bernard,

mp = machine processable

So you are totally right with your argumentation. And from my personal
point of view 3mp is to close to mp3.

When I write TTCN-3 code (independent of which editor I use ;-) I use
.ttcn3.

Best regards, Theo

Bernard Stepien schrieb:
> Hello Schicheng,
>
>> I like .3mp. This extension can well fit into the future 3GPP LTE
/SAE
>> test suites.
>
> There is a slight historical detail that would make any file extension
that
> includes the letters mp a bad idea. The name mp was used in TTCN-2 and
> although I forgot the meaning for the p, the m had to do with the
concept of
> machine interchange format. In theory, no human was supposed to look
at the
> content of these mp files. The reality was that lots of people not
only did
> but sometimes even did some substantial programming in that format.
>
> After all the efforts that we put in to come up with a human readable
core
> language, I think that to use this machine oriented name for file
extensions
> would be somewhat ironic.
>
> Ttcn3 looks like a good de facto standard to me.
>
> All the best.
>
> Bernard Stepien
>
>
>
>
>
>

---

Original Message

---

> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
> Sent: 11 January 2007 12:52
> To: TTCN3
> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
> Hello,
>
> everything that has been said so far is right. The third extension was
>
> .3mp
>
> So we have
> .ttcn3
> .ttcn
> .3mp
>
> While the standard does not define any relationship between the
> specification and its storage format we (the tool vendors) had to come

> up with a solution. Because obviously the specifications had to be
store
>
> somehow somewhere.
>
> We try to implement the tools in a way that they are able to cope with

> all possibilities. The user has to decide whether we have achieved our

> goal.
>
> I would like to note, that even if the tools would be able to handle
all
>
> different ways that have been discussed here, I believe the
relationship
>
> between the specification and its storage format will be a moving
> target. (Example: Storing test specifications in model repositories,
> etc.)
>
> So I am very keen to see future ideas/requirements on this topic.
>
> So long.
>
> Theo
>
>
> Antti Hyrkkanen schrieb:
>> Morning
>>
>> I remember seeing some third extension that I cannot recall, perhaps
> .t3,
>> so I could be wrong. I remember writing about this some years ago.
>> The standard does not also say anything how the modules and files are
> related..
>> you could put all your modules in a single file, or all in separate
> file,
>> and this was a potential annoyance between tools since I remember
some
> years
>> ago some tools required a single module within a file with the same
> name,
>> and some accepted several modules, so it might have required user to
>> chop a multi-module file into several single-module files to make
them
>
>> usable.
>>
>> Antti
>>
>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Risto Teittinen
>>> Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2007 19:10
>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> just a guess but it might have something to do with the fact that in
>>> some environments file extensions are really cosmetic, e.g.
> Unix/Linux
>>> systems.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Risto
>>>
>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>>>> members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext
>>>> Stephan Schulz
>>>> Sent: 10 January, 2007 17:54
>>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>
>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>>
>>>> The amazing answer is none.
>>>> The standard does not enforce any file extension.
>>>> I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to
>>>> different file extensions being used by different tools.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>>>>
>>>> Stephan
>>>>
>>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members
> only
>>>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
>>>>> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
>>>>> To: TTCN3
>>>>> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
>>>>> <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
>>>> TTCN-3 files
>>>>> while others use "ttcn3" string.
>>>>> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> /Pavel
>>>>>
>

Hi Shicheng,

we have executed several such transitions in Nokia and no one have ever
brought up file extensions as an issue. Therefore I dare to claim that a
file extension is only a cosmetic issue in TTCN-2 to TTCN-3 transition.


BR,
Risto


>

---

Original Message

---

>From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Shicheng Hu
>Sent: 12 January, 2007 10:54
>To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
>Hi Bernard and Theo
>
>Thank you for the answers.
>Exactly for the same historical reason I like 3mp. I have a
>few thoughts and would like to share with you.
>
>You may have known, we had a discussion at the last TTCN3 user
>conference about the TTCN3 survival in the next 10 years. We
>all hope so. One of the key issues to help is to enlarge the
>user horizon. And I believe, the current TTCN2 user group is
>larger than TTCN3 one. The same is probably true for the revenues.
>
>I see my job in the active_ttcn3 is to bring the TTCN2 users to TTCN3.
>Many things will be done in 2007 and 2008. I need also your
>helps to lower the transition barriers for the mass of the
>TTCN2 engineers in the test industry.
>
>Similar to the creation of TTCN3, we didn't change TTCN, why
>can TTCN3 source file extension not be called .3mp? You could
>invent a new meaning for mp in the TTCN3 context.
>
>Best regards
>Shicheng
>
>
>

---

Original Message

---

>From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of
>Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
>Sent: 11 January 2007 14:21
>To: TTCN3
>Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
>Hi Bernard,
>
>mp = machine processable
>
>So you are totally right with your argumentation. And from my
>personal point of view 3mp is to close to mp3.
>
>When I write TTCN-3 code (independent of which editor I use
>;-) I use .ttcn3.
>
>Best regards, Theo
>
>Bernard Stepien schrieb:
>> Hello Schicheng,
>>
>>> I like .3mp. This extension can well fit into the future 3GPP LTE
>/SAE
>>> test suites.
>>
>> There is a slight historical detail that would make any file
>extension
>that
>> includes the letters mp a bad idea. The name mp was used in
>TTCN-2 and
>> although I forgot the meaning for the p, the m had to do with the
>concept of
>> machine interchange format. In theory, no human was supposed to look
>at the
>> content of these mp files. The reality was that lots of people not
>only did
>> but sometimes even did some substantial programming in that format.
>>
>> After all the efforts that we put in to come up with a human readable
>core
>> language, I think that to use this machine oriented name for file
>extensions
>> would be somewhat ironic.
>>
>> Ttcn3 looks like a good de facto standard to me.
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Bernard Stepien
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

---

Original Message

---

>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
>> Sent: 11 January 2007 12:52
>> To: TTCN3
>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> everything that has been said so far is right. The third
>extension was
>>
>> .3mp
>>
>> So we have
>> .ttcn3
>> .ttcn
>> .3mp
>>
>> While the standard does not define any relationship between the
>> specification and its storage format we (the tool vendors)
>had to come
>
>> up with a solution. Because obviously the specifications had to be
>store
>>
>> somehow somewhere.
>>
>> We try to implement the tools in a way that they are able to
>cope with
>
>> all possibilities. The user has to decide whether we have
>achieved our
>
>> goal.
>>
>> I would like to note, that even if the tools would be able to handle
>all
>>
>> different ways that have been discussed here, I believe the
>relationship
>>
>> between the specification and its storage format will be a moving
>> target. (Example: Storing test specifications in model repositories,
>> etc.)
>>
>> So I am very keen to see future ideas/requirements on this topic.
>>
>> So long.
>>
>> Theo
>>
>>
>> Antti Hyrkkanen schrieb:
>>> Morning
>>>
>>> I remember seeing some third extension that I cannot recall, perhaps
>> .t3,
>>> so I could be wrong. I remember writing about this some years ago.
>>> The standard does not also say anything how the modules and
>files are
>> related..
>>> you could put all your modules in a single file, or all in separate
>> file,
>>> and this was a potential annoyance between tools since I remember
>some
>> years
>>> ago some tools required a single module within a file with the same
>> name,
>>> and some accepted several modules, so it might have
>required user to
>>> chop a multi-module file into several single-module files to make
>them
>>
>>> usable.
>>>
>>> Antti
>>>
>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>members only
>>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Risto Teittinen
>>>> Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2007 19:10
>>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> just a guess but it might have something to do with the
>fact that in
>>>> some environments file extensions are really cosmetic, e.g.
>> Unix/Linux
>>>> systems.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Risto
>>>>
>>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members
>>>>> only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Stephan Schulz
>>>>> Sent: 10 January, 2007 17:54
>>>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>>>
>>>>> The amazing answer is none.
>>>>> The standard does not enforce any file extension.
>>>>> I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to
>>>>> different file extensions being used by different tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephan
>>>>>
>>>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members
>> only
>>>>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
>>>>>> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
>>>>>> To: TTCN3
>>>>>> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
>>>>>> <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
>>>>> TTCN-3 files
>>>>>> while others use "ttcn3" string.
>>>>>> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Pavel
>>>>>>
>>
>

Hi Shicheng,

Let's be fair. The file extension can be .3mp and the tool from Danet actually uses it.
However I am not sure that a file extension will help a TTCN-2 engineer switch to TTCN-3.
It just needs so much more than that.

Well you could tell them to use a switch during compilation,
like "--map-suffix TTCN-3 3mp" if it makes them happier.

Do we really think TTCN-3 will be around in 10 years time. I thought that a quote from Prof. Hoare might be appropriate: I don't know what the language of the year 2000 will look like, but I know it will be called Fortran. (C A R Hoare, 1982)

Cheers,
Andrej

Andrej Pietschker, PhD
SIEMENS AG - CT SE 1
Corporate Technology
Software & Engineering
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
D-81739 München
Phone +49 (0)89 636-55130
Fax +49 (0)89 636-40898
email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Heinrich v. Pierer;
Vorstand: Klaus Kleinfeld, Vorsitzender; Johannes Feldmayer, Joe Kaeser,
Rudi Lamprecht, Eduardo Montes, Jürgen Radomski, Erich R. Reinhardt,
Hermann Requardt, Uriel J. Sharef, Klaus Wucherer
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin und München
Registergericht: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, München, HRB 6684
WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 23691322

---

Original Message

---

From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Shicheng Hu
Sent: Freitag, 12. Januar 2007 16:54
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension

Hi Bernard and Theo

Thank you for the answers.
Exactly for the same historical reason I like 3mp. I have a few thoughts
and would like to share with you.

You may have known, we had a discussion at the last TTCN3 user
conference about the TTCN3 survival in the next 10 years. We all hope
so. One of the key issues to help is to enlarge the user horizon. And I
believe, the current TTCN2 user group is larger than TTCN3 one. The same
is probably true for the revenues.

I see my job in the active_ttcn3 is to bring the TTCN2 users to TTCN3.
Many things will be done in 2007 and 2008. I need also your helps to
lower the transition barriers for the mass of the TTCN2 engineers in the
test industry.

Similar to the creation of TTCN3, we didn't change TTCN, why can TTCN3
source file extension not be called .3mp? You could invent a new meaning
for mp in the TTCN3 context.

Best regards
Shicheng

---

Original Message

---

From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
[This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
Sent: 11 January 2007 14:21
To: TTCN3
Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension

Hi Bernard,

mp = machine processable

So you are totally right with your argumentation. And from my personal
point of view 3mp is to close to mp3.

When I write TTCN-3 code (independent of which editor I use ;-) I use
.ttcn3.

Best regards, Theo

Bernard Stepien schrieb:
> Hello Schicheng,
>
>> I like .3mp. This extension can well fit into the future 3GPP LTE
/SAE
>> test suites.
>
> There is a slight historical detail that would make any file extension
that
> includes the letters mp a bad idea. The name mp was used in TTCN-2 and
> although I forgot the meaning for the p, the m had to do with the
concept of
> machine interchange format. In theory, no human was supposed to look
at the
> content of these mp files. The reality was that lots of people not
only did
> but sometimes even did some substantial programming in that format.
>
> After all the efforts that we put in to come up with a human readable
core
> language, I think that to use this machine oriented name for file
extensions
> would be somewhat ironic.
>
> Ttcn3 looks like a good de facto standard to me.
>
> All the best.
>
> Bernard Stepien
>
>
>
>
>
>

---

Original Message

---

> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
> Sent: 11 January 2007 12:52
> To: TTCN3
> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
> Hello,
>
> everything that has been said so far is right. The third extension was
>
> .3mp
>
> So we have
> .ttcn3
> .ttcn
> .3mp
>
> While the standard does not define any relationship between the
> specification and its storage format we (the tool vendors) had to come

> up with a solution. Because obviously the specifications had to be
store
>
> somehow somewhere.
>
> We try to implement the tools in a way that they are able to cope with

> all possibilities. The user has to decide whether we have achieved our

> goal.
>
> I would like to note, that even if the tools would be able to handle
all
>
> different ways that have been discussed here, I believe the
relationship
>
> between the specification and its storage format will be a moving
> target. (Example: Storing test specifications in model repositories,
> etc.)
>
> So I am very keen to see future ideas/requirements on this topic.
>
> So long.
>
> Theo
>
>
> Antti Hyrkkanen schrieb:
>> Morning
>>
>> I remember seeing some third extension that I cannot recall, perhaps
> .t3,
>> so I could be wrong. I remember writing about this some years ago.
>> The standard does not also say anything how the modules and files are
> related..
>> you could put all your modules in a single file, or all in separate
> file,
>> and this was a potential annoyance between tools since I remember
some
> years
>> ago some tools required a single module within a file with the same
> name,
>> and some accepted several modules, so it might have required user to
>> chop a multi-module file into several single-module files to make
them
>
>> usable.
>>
>> Antti
>>
>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Risto Teittinen
>>> Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2007 19:10
>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> just a guess but it might have something to do with the fact that in
>>> some environments file extensions are really cosmetic, e.g.
> Unix/Linux
>>> systems.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Risto
>>>
>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>>>> members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext
>>>> Stephan Schulz
>>>> Sent: 10 January, 2007 17:54
>>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>
>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>>
>>>> The amazing answer is none.
>>>> The standard does not enforce any file extension.
>>>> I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to
>>>> different file extensions being used by different tools.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>>>>
>>>> Stephan
>>>>
>>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members
> only
>>>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
>>>>> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
>>>>> To: TTCN3
>>>>> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
>>>>> <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
>>>> TTCN-3 files
>>>>> while others use "ttcn3" string.
>>>>> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> /Pavel
>>>>>
>

Hi all,
I have also been involved in transition of TTCN2 scripts to the TTCN3 format
in one of my projects. I think if we look at large quantity of TTCN3 code
then the file extensions do help. The extensions ca be helpful say, when
compiling the code using Makefiles where the file extensions come in handy
while writing different rules for different targets. Even otherwise the file
extensions do improve the readability and the structuring of the whole
directory structure. For example, with file extensions like .asn, .ttcn3
etc, we clearly know what are the contents of the file.

Br,
Arvinder.

---

Original Message

---

From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
[This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Risto Teittinen
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 3:16 PM
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension

Hi Shicheng,

we have executed several such transitions in Nokia and no one have ever
brought up file extensions as an issue. Therefore I dare to claim that a
file extension is only a cosmetic issue in TTCN-2 to TTCN-3 transition.


BR,
Risto


>

---

Original Message

---

>From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>[This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Shicheng Hu
>Sent: 12 January, 2007 10:54
>To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
>Hi Bernard and Theo
>
>Thank you for the answers.
>Exactly for the same historical reason I like 3mp. I have a few
>thoughts and would like to share with you.
>
>You may have known, we had a discussion at the last TTCN3 user
>conference about the TTCN3 survival in the next 10 years. We all hope
>so. One of the key issues to help is to enlarge the user horizon. And I
>believe, the current TTCN2 user group is larger than TTCN3 one. The
>same is probably true for the revenues.
>
>I see my job in the active_ttcn3 is to bring the TTCN2 users to TTCN3.
>Many things will be done in 2007 and 2008. I need also your helps to
>lower the transition barriers for the mass of the
>TTCN2 engineers in the test industry.
>
>Similar to the creation of TTCN3, we didn't change TTCN, why can TTCN3
>source file extension not be called .3mp? You could invent a new
>meaning for mp in the TTCN3 context.
>
>Best regards
>Shicheng
>
>
>

---

Original Message

---

>From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>[This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
>Sent: 11 January 2007 14:21
>To: TTCN3
>Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
>Hi Bernard,
>
>mp = machine processable
>
>So you are totally right with your argumentation. And from my personal
>point of view 3mp is to close to mp3.
>
>When I write TTCN-3 code (independent of which editor I use
>;-) I use .ttcn3.
>
>Best regards, Theo
>
>Bernard Stepien schrieb:
>> Hello Schicheng,
>>
>>> I like .3mp. This extension can well fit into the future 3GPP LTE
>/SAE
>>> test suites.
>>
>> There is a slight historical detail that would make any file
>extension
>that
>> includes the letters mp a bad idea. The name mp was used in
>TTCN-2 and
>> although I forgot the meaning for the p, the m had to do with the
>concept of
>> machine interchange format. In theory, no human was supposed to look
>at the
>> content of these mp files. The reality was that lots of people not
>only did
>> but sometimes even did some substantial programming in that format.
>>
>> After all the efforts that we put in to come up with a human readable
>core
>> language, I think that to use this machine oriented name for file
>extensions
>> would be somewhat ironic.
>>
>> Ttcn3 looks like a good de facto standard to me.
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Bernard Stepien
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

---

Original Message

---

>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
>> Sent: 11 January 2007 12:52
>> To: TTCN3
>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> everything that has been said so far is right. The third
>extension was
>>
>> .3mp
>>
>> So we have
>> .ttcn3
>> .ttcn
>> .3mp
>>
>> While the standard does not define any relationship between the
>> specification and its storage format we (the tool vendors)
>had to come
>
>> up with a solution. Because obviously the specifications had to be
>store
>>
>> somehow somewhere.
>>
>> We try to implement the tools in a way that they are able to
>cope with
>
>> all possibilities. The user has to decide whether we have
>achieved our
>
>> goal.
>>
>> I would like to note, that even if the tools would be able to handle
>all
>>
>> different ways that have been discussed here, I believe the
>relationship
>>
>> between the specification and its storage format will be a moving
>> target. (Example: Storing test specifications in model repositories,
>> etc.)
>>
>> So I am very keen to see future ideas/requirements on this topic.
>>
>> So long.
>>
>> Theo
>>
>>
>> Antti Hyrkkanen schrieb:
>>> Morning
>>>
>>> I remember seeing some third extension that I cannot recall, perhaps
>> .t3,
>>> so I could be wrong. I remember writing about this some years ago.
>>> The standard does not also say anything how the modules and
>files are
>> related..
>>> you could put all your modules in a single file, or all in separate
>> file,
>>> and this was a potential annoyance between tools since I remember
>some
>> years
>>> ago some tools required a single module within a file with the same
>> name,
>>> and some accepted several modules, so it might have
>required user to
>>> chop a multi-module file into several single-module files to make
>them
>>
>>> usable.
>>>
>>> Antti
>>>
>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>members only
>>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Risto Teittinen
>>>> Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2007 19:10
>>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> just a guess but it might have something to do with the
>fact that in
>>>> some environments file extensions are really cosmetic, e.g.
>> Unix/Linux
>>>> systems.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Risto
>>>>
>>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members
>>>>> only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Stephan Schulz
>>>>> Sent: 10 January, 2007 17:54
>>>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>>>
>>>>> The amazing answer is none.
>>>>> The standard does not enforce any file extension.
>>>>> I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to
>>>>> different file extensions being used by different tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephan
>>>>>
>>>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members
>> only
>>>>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
>>>>>> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
>>>>>> To: TTCN3
>>>>>> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
>>>>>> <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
>>>>> TTCN-3 files
>>>>>> while others use "ttcn3" string.
>>>>>> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Pavel
>>>>>>
>>
>

>

---

Original Message

---

> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Shicheng Hu
> Sent: 12. tammikuuta 2007 10:54
> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
> Hi Bernard and Theo
>
> Thank you for the answers.
> Exactly for the same historical reason I like 3mp. I have a few thoughts
> and would like to share with you.
>

[snip]

> Similar to the creation of TTCN3, we didn't change TTCN, why can TTCN3
> source file extension not be called .3mp? You could invent a new meaning
> for mp in the TTCN3 context.
>
> Best regards
> Shicheng

When I saw this .3mp suffix, the first thing that came into my mind
is that it is a some tool specific TTCN-3 module parameter file for a
.ttcn3 file. I might use such extension for module parameter use, if
the used tool does not specify the preferable extension.

Even though the extension might be cosmetic from OS point of view, it
is not cosmetic how you need to live with them.

One could probably write generic Makefiles that uses variable that specifies
the known TTCN-3 extensions, but in reality they will assume that
certain extensions are used. If you look at GNU Make manual, there's
stuff like this in the case of C language

foo := a.o b.o c.o
bar := $(foo:.o=.c)

--
objects = foo.o bar.o
all: $(objects)
$(objects): %.o: %.c
$(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) $< -o $@

If you happen to received from your collaborator TTCN-3 files and they
happen to use different extensions, you won't like it. At least I won't
like.

When I use scripts and commands to find files and perform any operations
on them, I often use wildcards and extensions. If there are several
extensions for the same file content, it will become annoying.

If some C programmer decided to use suffixes .ctu, .cl, .cs, or
whatever, (ctu= c translation unit, .cl = c language, cs=c-source) for
his .c files, how many of you would touch them? If you are like me, you
might wonder how strange the content will be since such exotic
extensions have been used.

I would like to see only one extension. More only if the content format
potentially differs (.c, .cc, .cxx). To me it shows immaturity of the
language if there's no well established extension that all people use.
What extension is the best one, I don't know. I've been using .ttcn
since it is less long than .ttcn3, but .ttcn3 is very clear about
its content. Even shorted extension might be nice, such as .t3.

Did some googling, and found out that .T3 is already used for
Tarshare File, whatever that might.

Antti

Hi,

I can only add to this discussion that ETSI STFs are probably the people
suffering most from this issue as they are _required_ to compile test
suites (especially Shicheng) with up to 5 different TTCN-3 tools (seems
like now we have to soon increment that to 7).

I think it would be a nice idea to start thinking about a common
extension. I imagine it should not be difficult for tool vendors to
support their originial file extensions in addition to the standardized
one. In other words one could require support of a common extension but
allow also to use others.

Just an idea,
Stephan

>

---

Original Message

---

> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
> members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Antti Hyrkkanen
> Sent: 12 January 2007 11:13
> To: TTCN3
> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
> >

---

Original Message

---

> > From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
> members only
> > [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Shicheng Hu
> > Sent: 12. tammikuuta 2007 10:54
> > To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> > Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
> >
> > Hi Bernard and Theo
> >
> > Thank you for the answers.
> > Exactly for the same historical reason I like 3mp. I have a few
> > thoughts and would like to share with you.
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > Similar to the creation of TTCN3, we didn't change TTCN,
> why can TTCN3
> > source file extension not be called .3mp? You could invent a new
> > meaning for mp in the TTCN3 context.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Shicheng
>
> When I saw this .3mp suffix, the first thing that came into
> my mind is that it is a some tool specific TTCN-3 module
> parameter file for a
> .ttcn3 file. I might use such extension for module parameter
> use, if the used tool does not specify the preferable extension.
>
> Even though the extension might be cosmetic from OS point of
> view, it is not cosmetic how you need to live with them.
>
> One could probably write generic Makefiles that uses variable
> that specifies the known TTCN-3 extensions, but in reality
> they will assume that certain extensions are used. If you
> look at GNU Make manual, there's stuff like this in the case
> of C language
>
> foo := a.o b.o c.o
> bar := $(foo:.o=.c)
>
> --
> objects = foo.o bar.o
> all: $(objects)
> $(objects): %.o: %.c
> $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) $< -o $@
>
> If you happen to received from your collaborator TTCN-3 files
> and they happen to use different extensions, you won't like
> it. At least I won't like.
>
> When I use scripts and commands to find files and perform any
> operations on them, I often use wildcards and extensions. If
> there are several extensions for the same file content, it
> will become annoying.
>
> If some C programmer decided to use suffixes .ctu, .cl, .cs,
> or whatever, (ctu= c translation unit, .cl = c language,
> cs=c-source) for his .c files, how many of you would touch
> them? If you are like me, you might wonder how strange the
> content will be since such exotic extensions have been used.
>
> I would like to see only one extension. More only if the
> content format potentially differs (.c, .cc, .cxx). To me it
> shows immaturity of the language if there's no well
> established extension that all people use.
> What extension is the best one, I don't know. I've been using
> .ttcn since it is less long than .ttcn3, but .ttcn3 is very
> clear about its content. Even shorted extension might be
> nice, such as .t3.
>
> Did some googling, and found out that .T3 is already used for
> Tarshare File, whatever that might.
>
> Antti
>

Hi Andrej

I cannot foresee 10 year, but 5-6 years definitely, even there will be another better test languages.
Br
Shicheng

---

Original Message

---

From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pietschker, Andrej
Sent: 12 January 2007 11:01
To: TTCN3
Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension

Hi Shicheng,

Let's be fair. The file extension can be .3mp and the tool from Danet actually uses it.
However I am not sure that a file extension will help a TTCN-2 engineer switch to TTCN-3.
It just needs so much more than that.

Well you could tell them to use a switch during compilation,
like "--map-suffix TTCN-3 3mp" if it makes them happier.

Do we really think TTCN-3 will be around in 10 years time. I thought that a quote from Prof. Hoare might be appropriate: I don't know what the language of the year 2000 will look like, but I know it will be called Fortran. (C A R Hoare, 1982)

Cheers,
Andrej

Andrej Pietschker, PhD
SIEMENS AG - CT SE 1
Corporate Technology
Software & Engineering
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
D-81739 München
Phone +49 (0)89 636-55130
Fax +49 (0)89 636-40898
email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Heinrich v. Pierer;
Vorstand: Klaus Kleinfeld, Vorsitzender; Johannes Feldmayer, Joe Kaeser,
Rudi Lamprecht, Eduardo Montes, Jürgen Radomski, Erich R. Reinhardt,
Hermann Requardt, Uriel J. Sharef, Klaus Wucherer
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin und München
Registergericht: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, München, HRB 6684
WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 23691322

---

Original Message

---

From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Shicheng Hu
Sent: Freitag, 12. Januar 2007 16:54
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension

Hi Bernard and Theo

Thank you for the answers.
Exactly for the same historical reason I like 3mp. I have a few thoughts
and would like to share with you.

You may have known, we had a discussion at the last TTCN3 user
conference about the TTCN3 survival in the next 10 years. We all hope
so. One of the key issues to help is to enlarge the user horizon. And I
believe, the current TTCN2 user group is larger than TTCN3 one. The same
is probably true for the revenues.

I see my job in the active_ttcn3 is to bring the TTCN2 users to TTCN3.
Many things will be done in 2007 and 2008. I need also your helps to
lower the transition barriers for the mass of the TTCN2 engineers in the
test industry.

Similar to the creation of TTCN3, we didn't change TTCN, why can TTCN3
source file extension not be called .3mp? You could invent a new meaning
for mp in the TTCN3 context.

Best regards
Shicheng

---

Original Message

---

From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
[This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
Sent: 11 January 2007 14:21
To: TTCN3
Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension

Hi Bernard,

mp = machine processable

So you are totally right with your argumentation. And from my personal
point of view 3mp is to close to mp3.

When I write TTCN-3 code (independent of which editor I use ;-) I use
.ttcn3.

Best regards, Theo

Bernard Stepien schrieb:
> Hello Schicheng,
>
>> I like .3mp. This extension can well fit into the future 3GPP LTE
/SAE
>> test suites.
>
> There is a slight historical detail that would make any file extension
that
> includes the letters mp a bad idea. The name mp was used in TTCN-2 and
> although I forgot the meaning for the p, the m had to do with the
concept of
> machine interchange format. In theory, no human was supposed to look
at the
> content of these mp files. The reality was that lots of people not
only did
> but sometimes even did some substantial programming in that format.
>
> After all the efforts that we put in to come up with a human readable
core
> language, I think that to use this machine oriented name for file
extensions
> would be somewhat ironic.
>
> Ttcn3 looks like a good de facto standard to me.
>
> All the best.
>
> Bernard Stepien
>
>
>
>
>
>

---

Original Message

---

> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Theofanis Vassiliou-Gioles
> Sent: 11 January 2007 12:52
> To: TTCN3
> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
> Hello,
>
> everything that has been said so far is right. The third extension was
>
> .3mp
>
> So we have
> .ttcn3
> .ttcn
> .3mp
>
> While the standard does not define any relationship between the
> specification and its storage format we (the tool vendors) had to come

> up with a solution. Because obviously the specifications had to be
store
>
> somehow somewhere.
>
> We try to implement the tools in a way that they are able to cope with

> all possibilities. The user has to decide whether we have achieved our

> goal.
>
> I would like to note, that even if the tools would be able to handle
all
>
> different ways that have been discussed here, I believe the
relationship
>
> between the specification and its storage format will be a moving
> target. (Example: Storing test specifications in model repositories,
> etc.)
>
> So I am very keen to see future ideas/requirements on this topic.
>
> So long.
>
> Theo
>
>
> Antti Hyrkkanen schrieb:
>> Morning
>>
>> I remember seeing some third extension that I cannot recall, perhaps
> .t3,
>> so I could be wrong. I remember writing about this some years ago.
>> The standard does not also say anything how the modules and files are
> related..
>> you could put all your modules in a single file, or all in separate
> file,
>> and this was a potential annoyance between tools since I remember
some
> years
>> ago some tools required a single module within a file with the same
> name,
>> and some accepted several modules, so it might have required user to
>> chop a multi-module file into several single-module files to make
them
>
>> usable.
>>
>> Antti
>>
>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Risto Teittinen
>>> Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2007 19:10
>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> just a guess but it might have something to do with the fact that in
>>> some environments file extensions are really cosmetic, e.g.
> Unix/Linux
>>> systems.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Risto
>>>
>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>>>> members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext
>>>> Stephan Schulz
>>>> Sent: 10 January, 2007 17:54
>>>> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>>>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>
>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>>
>>>> The amazing answer is none.
>>>> The standard does not enforce any file extension.
>>>> I know this leads to annoyances in practice but it has lead to
>>>> different file extensions being used by different tools.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe some tool vendors can comment on the history behind that?
>>>>
>>>> Stephan
>>>>
>>>>>

---

Original Message

---

>>>>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members
> only
>>>>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Pavel Yakovenko
>>>>> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:34
>>>>> To: TTCN3
>>>>> Subject: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed that some TTCN-3 sources published at www.ttcn-3.org
>>>>> <www.ttcn-3.org/> use "ttcn" as an extension for
>>>> TTCN-3 files
>>>>> while others use "ttcn3" string.
>>>>> Which one is correct from the TTCN-3 standard view? Both?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> /Pavel
>>>>>
>

Hi,

I don't have a problem with a common extension.

I guess this issue has to be handled via a CR but I'll provide my
proposal here.

I propose 'ttcn' with following arguments. It simply indicates that it's
all about TTCN. It does not specify is it TTCN-2, TTCN-3 or TTCN-4 but I
think it's only a good idea. Why so? Personally I don't like idea of
using numbers in the language name to refer a version of the language
(e.g. TTCN-2 and TTCN-3). If a version number is used in a suffix, it
implicitly means that whenever TTCN-4 shows up a new suffix is needed.
In my opinion when a language evolves it should not change the name of
the language. There are other ways to handle it. Also, you don't see any
version numbering in other common file extensions for other languages,
e.g. C (.c), ASN.1 (.asn) etc.

The only bad thing in 'ttcn' is that it is a bit too long for my taste.
It could be shorter, e.g 't3' that Antti mentioned or even 't' as TTCN
or testing.


BR,
Risto


>

---

Original Message

---

>From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>members only [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext
>Stephan Schulz
>Sent: 12 January, 2007 12:29
>To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>
>Hi,
>
>I can only add to this discussion that ETSI STFs are probably
>the people suffering most from this issue as they are
>_required_ to compile test suites (especially Shicheng) with
>up to 5 different TTCN-3 tools (seems like now we have to soon
>increment that to 7).
>
>I think it would be a nice idea to start thinking about a
>common extension. I imagine it should not be difficult for
>tool vendors to support their originial file extensions in
>addition to the standardized one. In other words one could
>require support of a common extension but allow also to use others.
>
>Just an idea,
>Stephan
>
>>

---

Original Message

---

>> From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active members only
>> [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Antti Hyrkkanen
>> Sent: 12 January 2007 11:13
>> To: TTCN3
>> Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>>
>> >

---

Original Message

---

>> > From: active_ttcn3 : mts stf133 ttcn version 3 - active
>> members only
>> > [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of ext Shicheng Hu
>> > Sent: 12. tammikuuta 2007 10:54
>> > To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>> > Subject: Re: TTCN-3 source file extension
>> >
>> > Hi Bernard and Theo
>> >
>> > Thank you for the answers.
>> > Exactly for the same historical reason I like 3mp. I have a few
>> > thoughts and would like to share with you.
>> >
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Similar to the creation of TTCN3, we didn't change TTCN,
>> why can TTCN3
>> > source file extension not be called .3mp? You could invent a new
>> > meaning for mp in the TTCN3 context.
>> >
>> > Best regards
>> > Shicheng
>>
>> When I saw this .3mp suffix, the first thing that came into
>my mind is
>> that it is a some tool specific TTCN-3 module parameter file for a
>> .ttcn3 file. I might use such extension for module parameter use, if
>> the used tool does not specify the preferable extension.
>>
>> Even though the extension might be cosmetic from OS point of
>view, it
>> is not cosmetic how you need to live with them.
>>
>> One could probably write generic Makefiles that uses variable that
>> specifies the known TTCN-3 extensions, but in reality they
>will assume
>> that certain extensions are used. If you look at GNU Make manual,
>> there's stuff like this in the case of C language
>>
>> foo := a.o b.o c.o
>> bar := $(foo:.o=.c)
>>
>> --
>> objects = foo.o bar.o
>> all: $(objects)
>> $(objects): %.o: %.c
>> $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) $< -o $@
>>
>> If you happen to received from your collaborator TTCN-3
>files and they
>> happen to use different extensions, you won't like it. At least I
>> won't like.
>>
>> When I use scripts and commands to find files and perform any
>> operations on them, I often use wildcards and extensions. If
>there are
>> several extensions for the same file content, it will become
>annoying.
>>
>> If some C programmer decided to use suffixes .ctu, .cl, .cs, or
>> whatever, (ctu= c translation unit, .cl = c language,
>> cs=c-source) for his .c files, how many of you would touch them? If
>> you are like me, you might wonder how strange the content will be
>> since such exotic extensions have been used.
>>
>> I would like to see only one extension. More only if the content
>> format potentially differs (.c, .cc, .cxx). To me it shows
>immaturity
>> of the language if there's no well established extension that all
>> people use.
>> What extension is the best one, I don't know. I've been using .ttcn
>> since it is less long than .ttcn3, but .ttcn3 is very clear
>about its
>> content. Even shorted extension might be nice, such as .t3.
>>
>> Did some googling, and found out that .T3 is already used
>for Tarshare
>> File, whatever that might.
>>
>> Antti
>>
>