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

Re: content of fault detail

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:33:52 -0400
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <370821D9-84E2-4D88-AF40-B33BBE695A62@Sun.COM>
On Jun 14, 2005, at 3:01 AM, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>
> 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-)
>
It can, see the minutes of Jan 26 XMLP telcon: http://www.w3.org/2000/ 
xp/Group/5/01/26-minutes.html.

Marc.

>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.




Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 12:33:57 GMT

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