sca-bindings message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Summary of discussion on issue BINDINGS-153
- From: Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
- To: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:15:36 +0100
Folks,
Comments inline based on the most recent
set of issues raised
Yours, Mike
|
|
Dr Mike Edwards
| Mail Point 137, Hursley
Park
|
|
STSM
| Winchester, Hants SO21
2JN
|
SCA & Services
Standards
| United Kingdom
|
Co-Chair OASIS SCA
Assembly TC
|
|
|
IBM Software Group
|
|
|
Phone:
| +44-1962 818014
|
|
|
Mobile:
| +44-7802-467431 (274097)
|
|
|
e-mail:
| mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
|
|
|
|
|
From:
| Simon Holdsworth/UK/IBM@IBMGB
|
To:
| sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
|
Date:
| 07/06/2011 11:50
|
Subject:
| [sca-bindings] Summary of discussion
on issue BINDINGS-153 |
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.
Recommendation - handle this by opening a new issue to make support for
the EPR element mandatory, and remove these statements from this issue.
<mje> Agreed </mje>
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.
<mje> Agreed </mje>
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.
<mje> New issue makes
support of SOAP 1.2 non -normative and the statements are removed -->
no tests required </mje>
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
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]