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

RE: Action in 1133, 1134

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:28:52 -0800
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E801B16558@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Arun Gupta" <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>, <paul.downey@bt.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>

I'm starting to think this is an issue for the WG.  The spec doesn't
specifically disallow (or does it?) the use of addressing/fault or
addressing/soap/fault for application faults - should it?
 
Using either the addressing or soap fault actions for application faults
is likely to devalue dispatching based on wsa:Action, because it
essentially lies about the source of the fault, and might dispatch the
fault to the soap or addressing layer instead of the application.

I think this goes beyond weakening the assertion as I was promoting
earlier, and ending up with something more like this:

  soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:Action/text() and
  soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:Action !=
    'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/fault' and 
  soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:Action !=
    'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/soap/fault'

If we think that will cause too much destabilization of our test
results, we could instead go with the weaker assertion:

  soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:Action/text()

Or, if we want to use the assertion text itself to promote the use of a
test-framework specific action we could use:

  soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:Action =
    'http://example.org/action/fault' or 
  soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:Action/text()

even though that's logically equivalent to just the text() assertion.

Comments?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arun Gupta [mailto:Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:56 AM
> To: paul.downey@bt.com
> Cc: Jonathan Marsh; public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Action in 1133, 1134
> 
> Should the assertion be checking for:
> 
>     soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:Action
>       = 'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/fault'
> 
> or
> 
>     soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:Action
>       = 'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/soap/fault'
> 
> since we are really testing for SOAP WS-A fault ?
> 
> -Arun
> 
> paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> > I've changed the assertion (in my local copy) to:
> >
> >    soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:Action
> >      = 'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/fault'
> >  or
> >    soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:Action
> >      = 'http://example.org/action/fault'
> >
> >  and documented the actions on the main page
> >  (I'll checkin later this morning, UK).
> >
> > We can always employ '1' as a last resort?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org on behalf of
Jonathan
> Marsh
> > Sent: Tue 2/21/2006 6:26 AM
> > To: Arun Gupta; WS-Addressing Tests
> > 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 Wednesday, 22 February 2006 20:29:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:29:01 UTC