- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 21:55:23 -0000
- To: <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>
Present: David Illsley (IBM) Mike Vernal (Microsoft) Mark Nottingham (WG Chair) Giovanni Boschi Kim Palko Glen Daniels (Sonic and Apache) Paul Downey (BT) agenda+ Action items ACTION: pauld to flag which tests are for CORE, SOAP, WSDL CR (PENDING) (not discussed!) ----- Glen concerned about lack of non-anonymous test cases and combinations thereof: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/issues/#test15 Glen: to supply non-anon ReplyTo/FaultTo test cases based upon existing operations. These shouldn't impact those implementing the current operations as services. Implementations are not required to generate each and every test case message - though expected to process and respond correctly to messages sent to them. We can use a canned client to send specific requests. ACTION: Paul to make his canned implementation available ----- agenda+ Dispatching by Action GED (v) Action, specific testing required in this round of CR? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests/2006Jan/0007.html Consensus on the call: we're happy with the Status Quo of the tests for Vancouver - i.e. echoIn and echoOut message bodies enabling processing keyed by Action and/or GED. WSDL CR testing may include tests to prove dispatching on the action, should that be deemed appropriate. ----- agenda+ Features not covered by tests http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/features/ * wsa:RelatesTo/@RelationshipType defaulting http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/features/#core07 David suggests an echo followed by a notify as one way of proving a relationship. requiring defaulting of RelationshipType is tricky - as with the notify tests, implementations may not be able to generate all of the messages. ACTION: Paul to write a RelatesTo test Again a 'canned' server may be used to send defaulted and undefaulted replies to test clients. * optional faults http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/features/#soap07 Lack of test cases - Glen raises it would be interesting to know who had implemented what error codes - Paul remains concerned how many are testable or implicitly imply order of processing. ACTION: Paul to enumerate missing fault code tests ACTION: Paul to elicit which fault codes have been implemented ----- agenda+ Other Issues http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/issues/ .... ----- agenda+ The interoperability Event http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Dec/0034.html http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite#status Unclear if running implementations on laptops will be available outside the hotel / room. Ideally endpoints should be publicly available. ----- agenda+ Status of implementations IBM, Microsoft, Axis2 confirmed on the call, Axis C/C++, Sonic, Sun and JBOSS possibly ready for Vancouver. Paul asks that implementations should be able to optionally send the test case number as content (not as additional elements or attributes which would require the WSDL changing the Schema element from an xs:string into ComplexType.) as described: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/#operations ----- Previous meetings: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests/2005Dec/0033.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests/2005Dec/0016.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests/2005Dec/0003.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests/2005Nov/0001.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests/2005Oct/0004.html
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 21:55:46 UTC