RE: Action in 1133, 1134

Seeing some +1s to clarifying this (or at least discussing it) I'll file
this as an issue with the WG.

 

________________________________

From: David Illsley [mailto:david.illsley@uk.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:00 AM
To: Arun Gupta
Cc: Jonathan Marsh; Marc Hadley; paul.downey@bt.com;
public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org;
public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Action in 1133, 1134

 


Comments inline 

David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
david.illsley@uk.ibm.com 

public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org wrote on 22/02/2006 21:49:07:

> 
> 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. 

I agree that the spec is a little ambiguous. I think people might read: 
        "The [action] property below designates WS-Addressing fault
messages: " 
as being proscriptive or advisory. 

So +1 to gaining some clarity. 

> 
> >  
> > 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. 

Agreed. 

> > 
> > 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' 

I think this depends on whether/what clarification we get on whether
these are 
disallowed from the WG. If they aren't allowed it's a breaking change
for my app 
(and probably others) which is fine but at that stage, unless someone
has a strong 
objection I think we should move to just: 

        soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:Action =
'http://example.org/action/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.
> > 

I'm happy with either of the above 2 suggestions for the moment. 
David 

> > 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
>