cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Adjusting WS-RM systests for http 202
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2011 20:34:09 GMT
On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 3:22:39 PM Aki Yoshida wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> I submitted the patch for this CXF-3768 in trunk.
> As this issue was raised for 2.4.2., I was thinking of integrating
> this patch into 2.4.x.
> 
> But after reading your question, I was not sure about how you thought.
> Would you prefer to keep the old behavior in 2.4? Technically, the
> behavior can be simply reverted to the old one by replacing one line
> in AbstractHTTPDestination. So, we could provide a configuration
> parameter to switch the behavior for 2.4 (I think we can make the
> default being the old behavior, as this is a bug fix, but we could
> make the default being the old behavior if this is considered not a
> bug but a change of behavior).
> 
> For 2.5, I suppose we are supporting only the new corrected behavior, right?

Right for 2.5.

For 2.4, I think it's a bit more complicated.   Its currently a 200 with a 
(empty body) SOAP message.   Are you proposing making it a 202 but keeping the 
soap message?   That seems strange to me.  Or are you thinking of making it 
also not create the soap message?  

PERSONALLY, I would prefer to keep this for 2.5.   There are a ton of "WS-RM 
goodness" things going on there that this seems to really fit.   That said, 
I'm not really strong either way.  


Dan




> 
> regards, aki
> 
> > 3) While all this improved work is for 2.5, how hard would it be to
> > create a smaller patch for 2.4/2.3 that would allow it to accept either
> > behavior? Basically, generate the old behavior on those, but if they
> > update to the latest patches, they could still work with the new
> > server.
> > 
> > I guess I would definitely update the tests for the correct/new
> > behavior.  At worst, I would just leave a single test or suite to test
> > the "compatible" behavior if we need to implement that.   For the most
> > part, I'm in the "spec compliance  and interopability trumps backwords
> > compatibility" camp.  It's something that can be release noted.
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org
> > http://dankulp.com/blog
> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Mime
View raw message