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

RE: A minor question

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:15:49 -0500
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF256323CE.E32010D1-ON85256FC8.0011D538@lotus.com>

Chris Ferris writes:

> But let's also be very clear that a fault is
> "generated" and that "generated" does not
> necessarily imply "transferred" back to the
> originator of the message that triggered the
> fault. That would be something defined by the
> binding specification employed.

Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say:  "That would be 
defined by the SOAP MEP, and implemented by the binding's support of the 
MEP."  From [1]:

"An MEP specification MUST also include:

   1. Any requirements to generate additional messages (such as responses 
to requests in a request/response MEP).
   2. Rules for the delivery or other disposition of SOAP faults generated 
during the operation of the MEP."

I think this is an important distinction.  At least in theory, and with 
apologies to Mark B. who isn't much fond of protocol independence, it 
should be possible for many applications to be coded with knowledge of the 
MEP, and no need for direct knowledge of the particular binding used.

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapmep

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 03:16:35 GMT

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