W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org > March 2006

RE: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:13:57 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC9522550276F3F6@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>, <mark.little@jboss.com>
Cc: <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org>


Ok, I've removed the RelatesTo assertions and made 1144 and 1244 INFORMATIONAL

just checking in a report and some fixes now ..

-----Original Message-----
From: Arun Gupta [mailto:Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM]
Sent: Mon 3/6/2006 2:55 PM
To: Mark Little
Cc: David Illsley; Downey,P,Paul,CXMA C; public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250
 
+1

Mark Little wrote:
> 
> 2 gets my vote.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> 
> David Illsley wrote:
> 
>>
>> *sigh*
>>
>> This really is an edge case... and in my view isn't earth shatteringly 
>> important so lets take an art of the possible approach...
>>
>> I'm happy to go with 2 unless someone has a different, /practical/ 
>> suggestion.
>>
>> David
>>
>> David Illsley
>> Web Services Development
>> MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
>> +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
>> david.illsley@uk.ibm.com
>>
>>
>> *<paul.downey@bt.com>*
>> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
>>
>> 05/03/2006 21:01
>>
>>     
>> To
>>     David Illsley/UK/IBM@IBMGB
>> cc
>>     <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>, 
>> <public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org>
>> Subject
>>     RE: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > assign [message id] with the 'first' one and then fault on (processing)
>> > the second one.
>>
>> which given SOAP headers are a bag, is basically tossing a coin.
>>
>> > The second MUST there does suggest to me that we should have an 
>> assertion
>> > to check that there is a RelatesTo with RelationshipType=reply in the
>> > response, and I think that the contents could be any of the input 
>> message
>> > ids or the unspecified message uri.
>>
>> sounds like we have to do more work for this edge case.
>>
>> Maybe we could either:
>>
>> 1) remove this test case
>> 2) make it informational with no assertion for the MUST
>> 3) add assertions to check it's a MessageId that came in the message 
>> (sigh)
>> 4) shove it back to the WG with a "must try harder" comment (big-sigh)
>>
>> I vote for (2) as (3) and (4) are a slippery slope
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
> 

-- 
got Web Services ?
Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from
http://java.sun.com/webservices
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 15:14:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:54:42 UTC