Re: Action in 1133, 1134

I think #2 is enough and we can keep #3 as optional.

-Arun

David Illsley wrote:
> 
> I think #2 is enough as #3 will be done by WSDL Binding testing.
> David
> 
> David Illsley
> Web Services Development
> MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
> david.illsley@uk.ibm.com
> 
> 
> *"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
> 
> 21/02/2006 06:26
> 
> 	
> To
> 	"Arun Gupta" <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>, "WS-Addressing Tests" 
> <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	RE: Action in 1133, 1134
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point, related to CR22 which was resolved today, which
> strengthens the guidance for protocol authors to SHOULD define their own
> custom actions.  Application faults I think also SHOULD define their own
> custom actions.  However, SHOULD isn't MUST so we have some leeway:
> 
> Some candidates for solutions are:
> 1) manually override these results to pass, but that's not as good as...
> 2) remove that assertion in favor of one simply checking that the Action
> is there.
> 3) define a custom application-level fault action for purposes of the
> testsuite such as "http://example.org/action/fault", and change these
> testcases to use it.  Implementations would need to change too to
> generate this fault.  This probably assures they are capable of using
> faults other than the predefined addressing one, which is good, but that
> seems beyond testing the spec for CR purposes, which is bad.
> 
> #2 good enough?
> 
> 
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
>  > addressing-tests-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arun Gupta
>  > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 3:48 PM
>  > To: WS-Addressing Tests
>  > Subject: Action in 1133, 1134
>  >
>  >
>  > test1133, 1134, 1233, 1234 has a check for:
>  >
>  > soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:Action =
>  > 'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/fault'
>  >
>  > AIU, this value is to be used for WS-Addressing faults only where as
> all
>  > the tests above throw an application specific fault. I understand the
>  > relevance of this check in test114XX and 124X.
>  >
>  > I can change my implementation to pass this test but would like to
>  > understand if this is a valid check ?
>  >
>  > -Arun
>  > --
>  > got Web Services ?
>  > Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from
>  > http://java.sun.com/webservices
> 
> 
> 

-- 
got Web Services ?
Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from
http://java.sun.com/webservices

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 15:21:29 UTC