W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy-interop@w3.org > May 2007

RE: Round4 external attachment testing

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:27:24 -0700
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
CC: "public-ws-policy-interop@w3.org" <public-ws-policy-interop@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D66CCFC0B64BA4BBD79D55F6EBC22573A9C663A01@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Does IBM have results to submit for the external attachment testing?

/paulc


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com




________________________________
From: public-ws-policy-interop-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-interop-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: April 26, 2007 4:11 PM
To: Ashok Malhotra
Cc: public-ws-policy-interop@w3.org; public-ws-policy-interop-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Round4 external attachment testing


We should remove the following sentence then:

        The message formats follow the formats defined in the WS-Policy Scenarios document

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM  |  Web Services Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM T/L 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com

"Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>

04/26/2007 04:06 PM

To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

cc

"public-ws-policy-interop@w3.org" <public-ws-policy-interop@w3.org>, "public-ws-policy-interop-request@w3.org" <public-ws-policy-interop-request@w3.org>

Subject

RE: Round4 external attachment testing










The exact format is an implementation choice.

All the best, Ashok

________________________________

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:02 PM
To: Ashok Malhotra
Cc: public-ws-policy-interop@w3.org; public-ws-policy-interop-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Round4 external attachment testing


Ashok,
what's the format of the message?  I couldn't find it in the doc.  If the format doesn't matter, its an impl choice of how (or even "if")  to do it because nothing goes on the wire, then we should remove that part of the scenario description.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM  |  Web Services Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM T/L 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
"Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Sent by: public-ws-policy-interop-request@w3.org

04/26/2007 01:14 PM


To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ws-policy-interop@w3.org" <public-ws-policy-interop@w3.org>

cc



Subject

RE: Round4 external attachment testing














Hi Doug:
Perhaps we shd have used different words.

Essentially, there are 3 inputs: policies, external attachment specifications, WSDL.
There is one output: The input WSLD with policy references added.

In doing the tests, we found that some of the namespace references were omitted or incorrect.
You shd fix these when you write your test.

All the best, Ashok


________________________________


From: public-ws-policy-interop-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-interop-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:52 AM
To: public-ws-policy-interop@w3.org
Subject: Round4 external attachment testing


Couple of questions on the round4 external attachment testing:
- the doc says these are unit testcase and not interop ones, but it also talks about a requestor and service and sending a message around. If they're unit testcases then it would seem we wouldn't need to define these roles. Are they really unit testcases?  if so, defining these roles seems unnecessary. Any reason its not a true interop test?
- the doc talks about the format of the message between the requestor and service but I couldn't find it in the doc - where is it?

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM  |  Web Services Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM T/L 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 16:28:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:06 GMT