RE: [ws-caf] proposed resolution for issue 129

["Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>]

Title: Message

This is the soap:mustUnderstand, yes (the context mustUnderstand is the subject of 134, and may or may not survive).

 

Doesn't soap define a default (false, i think). Do we need to define a further one ?

 

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
Sent: 24 June 2004 12:25
To: ws-caf
Subject: [ws-caf] proposed resolution for issue 129

http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=129

 

I'd like to propose that we change the text to agree with this, i.e., that mustUnderstand should be defined by referencing specifications. The only caveat would be: should there be a default and if so, what value to use? I think for interoperability purposes there should be a default and it should be false.

 

Mark.

 

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
 
www.arjuna.com