RE: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some questions/observations re: BDG)
by Doug Davis other posts by this author
Apr 2 2001 2:09PM messages near this date
Re: [soapbuilders] Open Conference Call (was: Tell me what to write)
|
RE: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some questions/observations re: BDG)
That would be useful but what worries me is that it might
become necessary. If everyone were truly interop'ing nicely
then we wouldn't need that matrix, you could connect up to
anyone who claims to support your service and just run. If
the server on the other side doesn't support something you're
sending (like mustunderstand headers) then you shouldn't have
to check a matrix first, the server should just fault (ie. not
lie).
-Dug
ps. For those, like me, who couldn't figure it out
E&O=3D=3DErrors and Omissions. 8-)
"Matt Long" <mlong@[...]..> on 04/02/2001 09:49:52 AM
Please respond to soapbuilders@[...].com
To: <soapbuilders@[...].com>
cc:
Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some
questions/observations re: BDG)
Bingo !
That's exactly what I've been driving at, i.e., the testing needs to be
richer.=A0 Attempting to create a subset of v1.1 in the BDG *is* not a good=
a
idea.=A0 Reporting the comprehensive testing results against a variability
matrix works, because the SOAP developer and utilize the matrix to
determine
the best fit for his needs.=A0 This way the BDG is avoids *any* potential
E&Os.
Doug, is this inline with your thoughts?
-Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@[...]..]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 8:42 AM
> To: soapbuilders@[...].com
> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: The Interop tests and BDG (was : some
> questions/observations re: BDG)
>
>
> Dave wrote:
> >>>(the BDG spec could of course spell it out: "if an implementation
> >receives something that is valid SOAP, but outside this subset, it
> >should detect this problem and report it back using the SOAP fault
> >mechanisms.")
> >Yes! That's exactly what I was trying to get Jake to tell me.
> >Jake, take note.
> >Dave
>
> If this includes faulting when a mustUnderstand header is
> sent then this is good (and alleviates my previous concern).
> So I think Simon's (was it Simon?) fault tests need to be
> mandatory.
> -Dug
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-~>
> Find software faster. Search more than 20,000
> software solutions on KnowledgeStorm. Register
> now and get started.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/HTDXJD/uMSCAA/zf4EAA/WNqXlB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------_->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@[...].com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
=
=20
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor =
=20
=
=20
Click Here to Find Software Faster =
=20
Click Here to Find Software Faster =
=20
=
=20
[IMAGE] =
=20
=
=20
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@[...].com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Thread:
Doug Davis
Matt Long
|