W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > December 2004

Re: new wsa:FaultTo text

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:46:07 -0800
Message-Id: <09BD3D43-4FC5-11D9-B400-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>

Doug,

Discussion of this issue was intertwined with that regarding other 
issues. Specifically, Paco (also of IBM) has an Action Item to make a 
proposal for issue 038 that will "clarify the nature of properties in 
the core."

The resolution to that issue may shed light on the answers your 
questions. In short, the WG seems to be moving in a direction where the 
abstract definitions of the properties in the core don't prescribe 
particular behaviours in specific situations, in favour of doing so in 
the bindings. Issues 021 and 022 are about the definition of them for 
WSDL and SOAP, respectively.

Note that this is just my impression, pending the formal resolution of 
these issues.

Regards,


On Dec 16, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Doug Davis wrote:
>
> All,
>   just noticed this:
>
>
> i029
>  Disallowing Faults — search
> core - design - closed
>
> Description
> wsa:FaultTo "may be absent if the sender cannot receive fault messages 
> (e.g. is a one-way application message)." But it also says that in the 
> absence of wsa:FaultTo the wsa:ReplyTo/From may be used. So, how does 
> a sender really say that it doesn't want ANY fault messages at all but 
> still be allowed to specify a wsa:From?
> Origin
> Doug Davis
> Owner
> Harris Reynolds
> Resolution2004-12-07
> Add "when present" to the second sentence of [fault endpoint] of Core 
> section three; remove third to fifth sentences of [fault endpoint of 
> Core section three (so as to not imply a processing model); make 
> similar changes in [reply endpoint] definition.
>
>
>  And the new text for wsa:FaultTo says:
>
> [fault endpoint] : endpoint reference (0..1)
> An endpoint reference that identifies the intended receiver for faults 
> related to this message. When formulating a fault message as defined 
> in 3.2 Formulating a Reply Message, the sender MUST use the contents 
> of the [fault endpoint], when present, of the message being replied to 
> to formulate the fault message. If this property is present, the 
> [message id] property is REQUIRED.
>
> So, what does it mean when the wsa:FaultTo header is not present? 
>  Does it mean the client will not get back any faults at all or does 
> the fault get sent back to the wsa:ReplyTo EPR?  Probably not since 
> the defaulting back to wsa:ReplyTo is not mentioned any more.  So, 
> what should the client expect in terms of where Faults will go when 
> wsa:FaultTo is not present?  As the text stands now I would guess that 
>  no wsa:FaultTo is the same as wsa:FaultTo == anonymousURI  - meaning 
> send faults back on the HTTP response flow - is this the new intent?
>
> thanks,
> -Dug
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Friday, 17 December 2004 00:54:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:00 GMT