OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

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



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]