Re: Proposal: New tests with addressing none uri

Nope, lets add this test.

Hopefully we can have some discussion on this in the WG call today.

-Arun

David Illsley wrote:
> Well I think it's be a useful test to show what the implementations do so 
> that others might do the right thing in the future.
> I'm also somewhat of the opinion (though haven't implemented it as such) 
> that it perhaps should be a special case within the WSDL binding doc and 
> the test will flush it out and allow a wider discussion.
> Do you have an objection to me adding these tests?
> David
> 
> David Illsley
> Web Services Development
> MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
> david.illsley@uk.ibm.com
> 
> 
> 
> Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM> 
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
> 07/31/2006 04:57 PM
> 
> To
> David Illsley/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> cc
> public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org
> Subject
> Re: Proposal: New tests with addressing none uri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> I think from WSDL Binding perspective, there are two types of addresses: 
> anonymous and non-anonymous. With that I'd qualify none URI as 
> non-anonymous.
> 
> What additional feature of WSDL Binding do you think this might test 
> otherwise ?
> 
> -Arun
> 
> David Illsley wrote:
>> I think it would be good to have a tests for anonymous=required with 
>> request messages with ReplyTo/FaultTo=none uri.
>> I'm not 100% what the correct behavior would be so feels like a good 
>> interop test. Thoughts?
>> David
>>
>> David Illsley
>> Web Services Development
>> MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
>> +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
>> david.illsley@uk.ibm.com
> 

-- 
got Web Services ?
Download and Contribute Web Services Interoperability Technology (WSIT)
http://java.sun.com/webservices/interop

Received on Monday, 31 July 2006 16:18:14 UTC