Re: Changes to test suite

Right,
some examples may clearly help authors (and developpers either :-D   ) 
doing the right thing.
Or maybe there is already a web page explaining this.
    Youenn

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Hmm.  I think it's broken in a different way.
>
> According to [1], which I don't think has been incorporated into the spec,
> the {http location} isn't "concatenated" but resolved.
>
> The relative URI "EchoName" is resolved against a base URI
> "http://example.org/MessageTest-3G/endpoint-1" resulting in
> "http://example.org/MessageTest-3G/EchoName" which still isn't quite what I
> intended. ;-)
>
> I think the best solution is to append a "/" to the endpoint addresses,
> which I will do shortly.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Sep/0034
>
> Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Youenn Fablet [mailto:youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:28 AM
>> To: Jonathan Marsh
>> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Changes to test suite
>>
>> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>>     
>>> 1) LocationTemplate-1G. Removed the "#" characters from the
>>> whttp:location on the "Escape" binding. These aren't legal at this
>>> spot in a URI. And there isn't a requirement they be escaped during
>>> the templating algorithm, so they aren't testing anything and
>>> preventing the wsdlcm from having a valid anyURI for the {http
>>> location} property.
>>>
>>> 2) MessageTest-2G. Augmented each whttp:location attribute to start
>>> with the name of the operation. Without some kind of unique
>>> whttp:location, operation dispatch in Axis doesn't work. I'll send a
>>> new issue describing the limitations of this shortly.
>>>
>>> 3) MessageTest-3G. Added whttp:location attributes on each Binding
>>> Operation, with a value equal to the operation name. Because unique
>>> whttp:location attributes are needed by Axis2, generic http bindings
>>> are not possible, so I added minimally-defined operations to the
>>> SafeEchoHTTPBinding.
>>>
>>>       
>> By concatenating these new locations with the @address value we end up
>> with URLs like:
>> - http://example.org/MessageTest-3G/endpoint-1GuaranteedFault, or
>> - http://example.org/MessageTest-3G/endpoint-1EchoName
>> It may be better, in the primer and these examples to use/promote URLS
>> like (please note the added / or ?):
>> - http://example.org/MessageTest-3G/endpoint-1*/*GuaranteedFault, or
>> - http://example.org/MessageTest-3G/endpoint-1*?*GuaranteedFault,
>> - http://example.org/MessageTest-3G/endpoint-1/EchoName, or
>> - http://example.org/MessageTest-3G/endpoint-1*?*EchoName
>>
>> Regards,
>> Youenn
>>
>>     
>>> We also have a known problem with evaluating gzipped messages, for
>>> which I have an action item. I think it would be easier first to get
>>> some initial results to pinpoint precisely which testcases can't be
>>> evaluated, and for which of those a control group would be useful. So
>>> I haven't touched this part yet.
>>>
>>> **Jonathan Marsh** - http://www.wso2.com -
>>> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
>>>
>>>       
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 5 January 2007 17:13:36 UTC