- From: Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:49:07 -0800
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: paul.downey@bt.com, public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Jonathan Marsh wrote: > 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? Although the spec does not explicitly disallow the use of addressing/fault or addressing/soap/fault but it does not seem like a good practice for applications to use Actions mainly targeted at infrastructure. Asking the spec to provide a recommendation for that might be a good idea. > > 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() I think this assertion is sufficient because I'm expecting an extensive wsa:Action testing when we get into WSDL Binding testing. -Arun > > 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 > > -- got Web Services ? Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from http://java.sun.com/webservices
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2006 21:47:57 UTC