W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > June 2005

Re: content of fault detail

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:01:59 +0200
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-Id: <1118732519.3206.3.camel@Kalb>

Marc, 

thanks for pointing this out; I couldn't quite find this in the errata
for SOAP 1.2 at
http://www.w3.org/2003/06/REC-soap12-20030624-errata.html but the
resolution of LC322 is clear enough and I must have completely missed
this.

We might want to seek official clarification from XMLP on which way the
spec should be interpreted. 8-)

If detail *can* carry header-related fault details, this particular
subissue vanishes. 8-)

Best regards,

Jacek

On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 14:15 -0400, Marc Hadley wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> >
> > From an implementation POV, it is quite convenient to deal with  
> > SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 errors/faults in same/similar way. Given the  
> > stmt pointed out by Jacek in SOAP 1.2 part 1 (that the Detail EII  
> > is intended for error info related to SOAP Body), I would like to  
> > suggest that whatever mechanism we adopt to resolve issue LC56 also  
> > be extended to SOAP 1.2. This would make:
> > 1) error processing for SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 very similar (would use  
> > the same headers for carrying fault details).
> > 2) resolve LC 72
> > 3) keep the spirit of SOAP 1.2 Detail EII.
> >
> IIRC, the quoted text from SOAP 1.2 is the subject of an errata[1]  
> that strikes the 'related to the SOAP Body'. Given this I don't think  
> we should adopt the same approach for the two protocols.
> 
> Marc.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/5A220E02-63EE-11D9-80B7-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM
> 
> >
> > -Anish
> > --
> >
> > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> >
> >> Mark, this is not an issue that I personally care about much, it's  
> >> just that
> >> WS-Addressing seems to violate this statement in the SOAP spec:
> >> "The Detail element information item is intended for carrying
> >> application specific error information related to the SOAP Body." [1]
> >> Even though this has been uncovered after the end of the LC  
> >> period, it
> >> should probably be fixed before CR, and the scope of LC56 seems  
> >> limited
> >> to SOAP 1.1, but this should be correct in both supported SOAP  
> >> versions.
> >> Best regards,
> >> Jacek
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#faultdetailelement
> >> On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 13:06 +0200, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jacek,
> >>>
> >>> As you may know, our comments period is over. However, I'd note  
> >>> that  the issue you raise seems to be similar to that in lc56  
> >>> [1], and as  such is likely to be covered when we discuss that  
> >>> issue.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc56
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 3, 2005, at 6:30 PM, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi again,
> >>>>
> >>>> as a followup to the original issue quoted below, after reading  
> >>>> Anish's
> >>>> proposal [1], I noted a further issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem is, SOAP (at least 1.2) says that header-related fault
> >>>> details must be headers, not in fault detail. WS-Addressing  
> >>>> faults are
> >>>> arguably header-related, therefore the details should probably be
> >>>> formulated as headers. See SOAP 1.2's NotUnderstood header [2].
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope it helps,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacek
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/ 
> >>>> 2005Jun/ 0003.html
> >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapnotunderstood
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 17:26 +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> as an LC comment for WS-Addressing, I'd like to note that in  
> >>>>> SOAP 1.2,
> >>>>> fault detail (the element S:Detail) can only contain element  
> >>>>> children,
> >>>>> which is apparently violated by sections 5.2 and 5.4 of WS- 
> >>>>> Addressing
> >>>>> SOAP binding.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The sections say, respectively:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 5.2: [Detail] [Missing Property QName]
> >>>>> 5.4: [Detail] [action]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The values (QName, anyURI) must be somehow enclosed in elements  
> >>>>> (or
> >>>>> represented as elements, which is doable for the QName) to be   
> >>>>> compatible
> >>>>> with SOAP 1.2 fault detail.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>                   Jacek Kopecky
> >>>>>
> >>>>>                   Ph.D. student researcher
> >>>>>                   Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> >>>>>                   University of Innsbruck
> >>>>>                   http://www.deri.org/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> >>> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> >>> ------------
> >>>
> >>> Join CEO Alfred Chuang and CTO Mark Carges on June 15 for a  
> >>> unique online event, giving you the first look at a new category  
> >>> of enterprise software built specifically for Service-Oriented  
> >>> Architecture (SOA).
> >>>
> >>> Register Now.  It's Free!
> >>>
> >>> http://www.bea.com/events/june15
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> 
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 07:02:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:05 GMT