W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > February 2005

Text related to fault handling discussion

From: Gary Brown <gary@enigmatec.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:40:52 -0000
Message-ID: <00f401c51dbc$a9e32520$0200a8c0@LATTITUDEGary>
To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
This text is from a recent WS-BPEL draft:

"Because WSDL does not require that fault names be unique within the namespace where the service operation is defined, all faults sharing a common name and defined in the same namespace are indistinguishable in BPEL4WS. In WSDL 1.1 it is necessary to specify a portType name, an operation name, and the fault name to uniquely identify a fault. This limits the ability to use fault-handling mechanisms to deal with invocation faults. This is an important shortcoming of the WSDL fault model that will be removed in future versions of WSDL."

>From my understanding, BPEL is interested in being able to handle a fault message independently from any specific operation, and that is why they have raised this as an issue.

However, from a CDL perspective, fault messages are always handled within an interaction that does have the relevant context (i.e. the port type and operation name) - and therefore adding the faultName to a respond exchange would "uniquely identify a fault". Unlike BPEL, CDL does not require faults to be globally unique, as they are alway handled in the context of an operation.

Received on Monday, 28 February 2005 17:41:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:07 UTC