Hm. My personal preference is to leave our code be in places where we think we're doing the right thing and the spec/TCK might be wrong, and take it up with the Sun guys. The failed test will stand as a reminder of the issue, and we can fix it later depending on the resolution. I'd rather that than passing the test and then forgetting about the issue or later saying "well what's done is done", especially in cases where the effort to pass the test is a bit more than this example here.
--Glen > -----Original Message----- > From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 5:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: cvs commit: xml-axis/java/test/saaj TestEnvelope.java > > > Glen, > > Long-term yes. Short-term no use. Not much will happen in the > short term. Thera are more issues > like this that am planning to let everyone know once i finish > one round of SAAJ compliance. > > Thanks, > dims > > --- Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Dims! > > > > > * @return a <CODE>String</CODE> with the fault code > > > */ > > > public String getFaultCode() { > > > - return fault.getFaultCode().toString(); > > > + return fault.getFaultCode().getLocalPart(); > > > } > > > > > > > Um, this looks to me like we're losing information... > Faultcode is a qualified name, so the > > namespace part is kind of an essential part of the results here, no? > > > > I think we should perhaps raise this with the SAAJ guys > rather than removing functionality? > > Opinions? > > > > --G > > > ===== > Davanum Srinivas - http://xml.apache.org/~dims/ > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com >
