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

Re: WSA SOAP Binding minor editorial issues

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:08:57 -0500
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <7e5f42a3ffb0c2f6cf996fc21fad5c99@Sun.COM>

On Mar 10, 2005, at 6:53 PM, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>
>>> 7) Section 5 says: "The [action] property below designates
>>> WS-Addressing
>>> fault messages: http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/fault".  But as
>>> we're (unfortunately) not defining that URI we should illustrate a
>>> different [action] value.
>>>
>> We can define an action URI for the messages we define (the SOAP fault
>> ones), I think this is OK as is but we might want to define individual
>> actions for each fault we define rather than using a single action for
>> all of them - a new issue ?
>
> I am perfectly OK with it, since it provides the functionality I asked
> for, and was refused, in i049.  At the same URI no less!  Multiple URIs
> is also fine but I can live without it.
>
There's a key difference between the status quo and your proposal for 
i049. The status quo defines an action URI for the faults defined by 
WS-Addressing. Your proposal for i049 (IIRC) was to define a generic 
fault URI that can be used with any application fault no described in 
WSDL and to also use that URI for the fault defined by WS-Addressing.

With the status quo I can inspect the action URI and determine the type 
of fault (or at least that it pertains to WS-Addressing usage). With 
your proposal the action URI would have just said that the message was 
a fault.

Marc.

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Saturday, 12 March 2005 14:08:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:04 GMT