W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > October 2004

RE: Faults that are not described in WSDL?

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:25:20 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DCC4@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <dbooth@w3.org>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Hi David!
 
i think it's very important for an endpoint to be able to send faults
not described in WSDL given:
 
- it's a common usage pattern in programming models to list the
exceptions you expect to catch or process, and have a wildcard
exception for those not enumerated.
 
- the receiver may have an older version of the WSDL.
In this case receiving an unexpected fault is a fault and therefore
must be understood as a fault.
 
*but* that doesn't answer you concern about how the format and contents
of such faults would be described. i guess the answer here is that this is a 
a binding specific issue. i know what an unexpected fault will look like in the 
SOAP and HTTP bindings, but there may be bindings to transport and serialisations
which don't have a generalised fault model.
 
Paul

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org on behalf of David Booth 
	Sent: Thu 28/10/2004 16:36 
	To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Faults that are not described in WSDL?
	
	


	Part 1 section 2.3.1 says "Note that faults other than the ones
	described in the Interface component can also be generated at run-time,
	i.e. faults are an open set.".
	
	I think this needs clarification.  How can a client application or Web
	service know what additional faults to expect, and what message schemas
	would describe such faults?
	
	--
	
	David Booth
	W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
	
	
	

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 19:24:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT