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

Re: Issue 1008 - Fault Handling

From: Gary Brown <gary@enigmatec.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:12:37 -0000
Message-ID: <004b01c529a3$bac221a0$0300a8c0@LATTITUDEGary>
To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>, "Charlton Barreto" <charlton_b@mac.com>


My view is that we should not be constraining CDL based on the way Java APIs 
deal with faults. We are primarily bound to WSDL, and if WSDL allows a 
service to be declared with an operation having multiple named faults, all 
of the same type, then we need to be able to define a choreography that 
fully supports that operation.

I think we simply need to add a 'faultName' attribute to the exchange which 
can be used to identify the fault - possibly only relevant if the associated 
information type is an exception type? - or to be more generic we could just 
re-use the 'name' attribute.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charlton Barreto" <charlton_b@mac.com>
To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Issue 1008 - Fault Handling

> In general, Java Web Services provide two approaches to handling faults - 
> deserializing them as Exceptions or processing the message directly in a 
> handler. If an operation throws multiple faults with the same message type 
> as in WSDL 1.1, where these faults are differentiated solely by name, only 
> the latter approach provides any mechanism to distinguishing them. Once 
> the fault is deserialized into an Exception there is no way to 
> differentiate between faults having the same message type.
> Generally the lower level language bindings prohibit this situation, 
> recognizing it as a degenerate scenario. As such, unless someone can come 
> up with a good use case for this, I would propose that CDL should strongly 
> recommend against it, rather than provide facilities to support it.
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2005 21:12:44 UTC

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