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

Re: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250

From: Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:09:47 -0800
To: paul.downey@bt.com
Cc: mark.little@jboss.com, david.illsley@uk.ibm.com, public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
Message-id: <440C5ECB.8000409@sun.com>

I added Sun-WSO2 logs http://soapinterop.java.sun.com:8080/wsalogs/.

-Arun

paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> 
> 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 16:07:59 UTC

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