On 1/3/06, paul.downey@bt.com <paul.downey@bt.com> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > > Whatever the resolution, I hope that the need for additional > > out-of-band agreement (other than what is defined in the SOAP & WSDL > > specs) is documented as an interoperability problem. > > I'm unsure what OOB agreement is needed - the issue is that the > same element 'echo' being used for the input and output, an > endpoint acting as both the sender and receiver roles can only use > Action to distinguish if the echo is a request or a response. > > In practice, an endpoint is unlikely be operating as both 'client' > and 'server', 'publisher' and 'subscriber' etc. so changing the > message body element to be also unique relaxes the requirement > artificially placed upon implementations to process based upon > wsa:Action rather than the message contents or even some > combination of the two. > > As far as the sender is concerned, they only need to populate > the wsa:Action and body fields as directed by the WSDL, EPR or > whatever and all is well. Ok, that's a bit different than what I thought you were describing earlier. I agree that additional out-of-band agreement isn't being required. However, if the test is remedied to your liking, it seems that all that's being tested is WS-A + GED-dispatching, in which case I have to ask the question just asked by Simon; what's wsa:Action for? Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.comReceived on Tuesday, 3 January 2006 20:38:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT