RE: message contents -- was Minutes - WS-Addressing Test Suite TF call 5 Jan 2006

Hi David, all:

> I asked the exact same question about why not require this 
> last year. The answer surprised me (probably shouldn't have), 
> but I can see the argument. 
> If we mandate that the testid is in the body a less than 
> honest 'implementor' could simply grep an incoming message 
> and return a correct one. 

Big deal - you can still do a simple XSLT or regexp match to return a
correct response too!  In fact, if you have the correct set of XSLTs,
who's to say you *don't* have a valid WSA implementation? :) (remember
Don Box's XSLT SOAP implementation?)

Besides, I'm not suggesting that the strings be entirely static here;
but simply that there be SOME way in the message to indicate what test
conditions are supposedly being satisfied.  Really, why is this even
controversial?

> I'd like to agree on a format for us to use for debugging 
> purposes though the implementations should support random 
> strings (with "" causing a fault) 

Here's the "benefit" I see in supporting truly random strings (or
rather, in failing to have a standard test identifier somewhere in the
message): you lose the ability for automated validation of test results.
Gee, that's awesome. :)  Can someone point me to another benefit?

--Glen

Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 20:42:44 UTC