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

Re: A minor question

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:31:22 -0500
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <423A053A.8040607@tibco.com>

Martin Gudgin wrote:

>I've not seen an answer to this question, so here goes;
>
>A fault is just a reply. So the relationship would be reply. You can
>tell it's a fault because SOAP defines a fault message very
>specifically.
>
>  
>
Makes sense to me.

>Anyone have another answer?
>
>Gudge 
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
>>[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
>>Sent: 08 March 2005 10:56
>>To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>Subject: A minor question
>>
>>
>>Why do we predefine a "reply" relationship but not a "fault" 
>>relationship?  The idea would be that a fault would be tagged with 
>>(fault, requestMID) as opposed to (reply, requestMID).
>>
>>I had expected to see this as a resolved issue in the issues 
>>list, but 
>>apparently not.  I haven't trawled through the mailing list 
>>archives, so 
>>apologies if it's already been done to death.
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2005 22:32:02 GMT

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