RE: Misc Comments - Part 2

Arun

> 4). There is no test for "Action Not Supported" fault. I thought at one 
> time we agreed that is the most common fault scenario (cant find 
> reference though). 

feel free to submit one!

> On a related point, I think test1240 should instead 
> be checking for "Action Not Supported" fault since that is more likely 
> to occur. A duplicate To or any other WS-A header in the SOAP message is 
> less likely to occur.

I think this goes to the heart of why I strongly dislike the
fault codes in the spec. They're not testable, and where they 
are, implicitly impose an order of procesing on an implementation.

Paul