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.

Regards
Gary
Received on Monday, 28 February 2005 17:41:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:25 GMT