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


From: Gary Brown <gary@enigmatec.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:25:21 -0000
Message-ID: <00bd01c4f332$674c3b20$4b00a8c0@LATTITUDEGary>
To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
The current spec defines WSDL1.1 faults using the InformationType to relate to the appropriate WSDL Message Type. However, if an operation has multiple faults, each with the same Message Type, then the only thing that distinguishes them is the fault name. 

However, the 'interaction' syntax does not support specifying a name associated with the "respond" exchange, when it is receiving a fault - it only specifies the Information Type, which in turn only links to the WSDL message type. The actual fault name is not referenced anywhere.

For consistency across WSDL1.1 and WSDL2, perhaps the InformationType could refer to the actual type structure (which would be a change related to the WSDL2 support in the current spec), and then the 'exchange' is changed so that when it is used to receive a fault (i.e. an ExceptionType), the name field is the actual fault name - which could map onto WSDL1.1 and WSDL2.


Gary and Steve
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 14:25:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:06 UTC