W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2006

RE: New interchange results

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:04:40 -0800
To: "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f401c71499$3f78c660$3401a8c0@DELLICIOUS>

Nice green results!

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Youenn Fablet [mailto:youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:29 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: New interchange results
> 
> Thanks,
> I fixed some bugs in the wsdl processor and the wsdl interchange
> generator (see attachment for results).
> It seems that there is one document which has still issues
> (MessageTest-1G) when I am running locally the diff tool, although this
> document is equivalent to the one I sent last week and which appeared
> correct on
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-
> suite/results/Interchange.html.
> This may be due to ordering of the binding fault references or
> differences in the stylesheet processors.
> I am not sure of the ordering key there since these components only
> contain id and ref information.
> 
> Concerning the required extensions documents, I am not sure to
> understand your suggestion.
> When an extension is set as optional, we can safely ignore it and assume
> that the component model is correct (even if not entirely complete, some
> properties might be missing).
> When an extension is mandatory and we do not understand it, we cannot
> make this assumption and we do not know the impact of this extension on
> the component model : a required extension may well modify existing WSDL
> 2.0 component property values.
> Consequently, at least in our implementation, we are not able to
> generate a full component model when unknown required extensions are
> present.
> Are you suggesting that we should generate the interchange on these
> documents either:
>     - by ignoring these required extensions or
>     - by adding in the interchange document information on these
> required extensions
>     - a third option?
> 
>     Youenn
> 
> 
> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > Thanks, lots more green at
> > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-
> suite/results/Intercha
> > nge.html!
> >
> > See inline.
> >
> > Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com -
> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Youenn Fablet [mailto:youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:04 AM
> >> To: Jonathan Marsh
> >> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >> Subject: New interchange results
> >>
> >> Please find updated canon interchange results.
> >> These results should integrate  the latest interchange schema fixes and
> >> include the newly added wsdl test-cases.
> >> I hope all generated interchange documents are now schema valid.
> >>
> >
> > Not quite!  I show some duplicate IDs in MessageTest-1G, MessageTest-5G,
> and
> > ModuleComposition-1G, on soapHeaderBlockComponent and
> soapModuleComponents.
> >
> >
> >> Please find below some issues:
> >>
> >> 1) I am still not able to have results for two files:
> >>     - Echo-2G: it has a required unknown extension and uses meps that
> >> are now in the separate W3C note.
> >>     - WSAddressing1-G: it has the wsa required extension that we do not
> >> support.
> >> What should we do with these test cases?
> >>
> >
> > As far as the interchange format is concerned, there isn't any problem
> with
> > required extensions or extended MEPs - in both cases the interchange can
> be
> > generated just fine, even when the component model can't be correctly
> used
> > further downstream.  I do see a problem with comparing results between
> an
> > implementation that does support those extensions, but so far we don't
> have
> > that problem!
> >
> > If however your implementation doesn't separate these cases, we can
> simply
> > indicate that in our results, showing that it's simply a limitation of
> our
> > test methodology rather than of the spec.
> >
> >
> >> 2) I also have a problem with MessageTest-2G: the schema document uses
> >> the type 'IntFaultStruct' without defining it.
> >> This type is also used and defined in MessageTest-1G.
> >> I assume the type definition from MessageTest-1G should be copied in
> >> MessageTest-2G.
> >> Jonathan, can you update this schema document?
> >>
> >
> > Done.
> >
> >
> >> 3) It seems that the interchange canonicalization is not reordering the
> >> message and fault references within interface/binding operations.
> >> This leads to differences between the baseline and some canon
> >> interchange documents which are not meaningful.
> >> Jonathan, can you add the reordering in the canonicalization stylesheet
> >> and rerun the comparisons?
> >>
> >
> > I fixed some issues with this at the FTF, which I think must have worked
> > because I'm not seeing any failures because of ordering issues.  Maybe
> > you've got an old version.
> >
> > However, I also improved the comparison results to give the nearest
> xml:id
> > value - that helps narrow down just where the problem is more quickly.
> > Should have done that long ago.
> >
> > Checking in all the above fixes shortly...
> >
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >>     Youenn
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 16:11:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:42 GMT