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

RE: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:10:16 -0000
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA8001EE61F7@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Hey David,

<snip />

> 
> In short, I don't think faults make much sense outside
> request/response.  Even in request/response, they're more a
> well-established convenience for binding to languages that use
> exceptions than they are an inherent necessity.
> 


Since faults are messages that carry 'something went bad' semantics,
they do have a place in other MEPs apart from request/response. I
personally don't see faults as a mechanism to deal with exceptions at
the implementation (e.g. procedure/method call exceptions), which if I
understood correctly is what your message suggested.

Although difficult to support in WSDL, there may still be ways of
describing more complex MEPs than request/response. In such MEPs, fault
messages may have a place in conveying protocol or application fault
semantics. For example, imagine the following MEP that a service may
support:

msg 1 in -> msg 2 out -> msg 3 in -> (fault msg 1 out) OR (msg 5 out ->
msg 6 out -> msg 7 in -> (msg 8 out OR fault msg 2 out))

These are the kind of protocol interactions for a service we can
describe with SSDL (http://ssdl.org). The messages are part of a single,
multi-message protocol exchange.

Regards,
.savas.
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2005 22:16:59 GMT

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