- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:13:57 -0000
- To: <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>, <mark.little@jboss.com>
- Cc: <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org>
Ok, I've removed the RelatesTo assertions and made 1144 and 1244 INFORMATIONAL just checking in a report and some fixes now .. -----Original Message----- From: Arun Gupta [mailto:Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM] Sent: Mon 3/6/2006 2:55 PM To: Mark Little Cc: David Illsley; Downey,P,Paul,CXMA C; public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org Subject: Re: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250 +1 Mark Little wrote: > > 2 gets my vote. > > Mark. > > > David Illsley wrote: > >> >> *sigh* >> >> This really is an edge case... and in my view isn't earth shatteringly >> important so lets take an art of the possible approach... >> >> I'm happy to go with 2 unless someone has a different, /practical/ >> suggestion. >> >> David >> >> David Illsley >> Web Services Development >> MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN >> +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049) >> david.illsley@uk.ibm.com >> >> >> *<paul.downey@bt.com>* >> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org >> >> 05/03/2006 21:01 >> >> >> To >> David Illsley/UK/IBM@IBMGB >> cc >> <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>, >> <public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org> >> Subject >> RE: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > assign [message id] with the 'first' one and then fault on (processing) >> > the second one. >> >> which given SOAP headers are a bag, is basically tossing a coin. >> >> > The second MUST there does suggest to me that we should have an >> assertion >> > to check that there is a RelatesTo with RelationshipType=reply in the >> > response, and I think that the contents could be any of the input >> message >> > ids or the unspecified message uri. >> >> sounds like we have to do more work for this edge case. >> >> Maybe we could either: >> >> 1) remove this test case >> 2) make it informational with no assertion for the MUST >> 3) add assertions to check it's a MessageId that came in the message >> (sigh) >> 4) shove it back to the WG with a "must try harder" comment (big-sigh) >> >> I vote for (2) as (3) and (4) are a slippery slope >> >> Paul >> >> > -- got Web Services ? Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from http://java.sun.com/webservices
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 15:14:47 UTC