Re: [sca-bindings] Summary of discussion on issue BINDINGS-153

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

On 6/7/2011 3:39 AM, Simon Holdsworth wrote:
> Folks, in order to capture where we are and possibly spark further
> discussion, here's the summary of where we are with BINDINGS-153. My
> preference would be that we open some new issues to cover the statements
> where we have an agreed direction, and narrow BINDINGS-153 down to those
> cases where we do believe new tests are required with no changes to
> normative statements. Actually, in order to move this along I'll take
> the liberty of going ahead and create new issues for those cases.
>
> a) [BWS20022] and [BWS20023] map to TA-20021 and TA-20022 and are about
> the using an EPR to specific the endpoint and are marked as 'option
> function -- no test'.
>
> Direction here is to make BWS20022 a MUST, possibly requiring a new
> testcase, and making BWS20023 non-normative.

If we make BWS20022 a MUST, then BWS20023 goes away.

> Recommendation - handle this by opening a new issue to make support for
> the EPR element mandatory, and remove these statements from this issue.
>
> b) [BWS20029] maps to TA-20028 and is about the use of "?wsdl"
> This is an optional feature but that should not prevent us from testing
> this feature with instructions for runtimes that don't support this
> feature. It would be easy to add a new test that does a HTTP get on
> "?wsdl" and see if it returns a 2xx with a wsdl doc.
>
> Direction here is to make BWS20029 and BWS20030 non-normative and remove
> their test assertions, no testcase required.
> Recommendation - handle this by opening a new issue to make support for
> ?wsdl non-normative and remove from this issue.
>

Since we are changing the wordings here:
I think BWS20030 ought to be changed to remove the 'if' clause. The 
runtime should (english 'should' here) provide a way to obtain the WSDL 
regardless of the protocols supported.

-Anish
--


> c) [BWS20034] maps to TA-20032 and is about optional support for WSDL
> 1.1/SOAP 1.2 binding
> Add a new test that uses WSDL 1.1 constructs for SOAP 1.2 binding
> d) [BWS20036] maps to TA-20034 is also about SOAP 1.2 binding.
> This can be tested in conjunction with the test for TA-20032.
>
> Direction here was unclear, I think there's some resistance to making
> support for SOAP 1.2 mandatory, but in that case we would need an
> optional test. I think it would be better to open another new issue
> specifically to handle the optionality of SOAP 1.2 support and its testing.
>
> e) [BWS20037] maps to TA-20035
> Add a new test that has a SOAP.v1_2 intent for an element but a SOAP 1.1
> binding. This should result in an error.
>
> Direction here was to add a test for this situation, so this is still
> valid and remains in this issue.
>
> f) [BWS40007] maps to TA-40007
> Add a new test that requires the default transport binding rules and
> uses the rpc-lit pattern and check to see if namespace was used.
>
> Some confusion on the discussion on this, and needed Eric's input.
> Anish's feeling was that BWS40007 should be turned into a MUST, which
> would then potentially need a new test. Recommendation is to open a new
> issue.
>
> g) [BWS50010] maps to TA-50008
> Add a new test that contains a WSDL that has the WSCB policy assertion
> with wsdl:required='true'
> h) [BWS50013] maps to TA-50009
> Add a new negative test that contains a WSDL that has the WSCB policy
> assertion with wsdl:required='true' attached to the wsdl:portType
>
> Ongoing discussion on the testability of these two, for the moment no
> change to the statements is being suggested so these should stay in this
> issue.
>
> Regards, Simon
>
> Simon Holdsworth
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /
> /
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
>