W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > May 2005

RE: Clarificatioin for binding fault

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:07:35 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50784D751@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thank you for your comment, tracked as LC56 [1].  The WG resolved this
as a duplicate of LC55 [2], which we accepted as described at [3].


If we don't hear from you within two weeks, we'll assume this resolution
is satisfactory.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC56

[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC55





From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 5:37 PM
To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Cc: Jonathan Marsh
Subject: Clarificatioin for binding fault


Unlike interface faults, no binding operation level <infault> and
<outfault> constructs are provided in the LC draft. I don't recall and
can not trace discussion on the rationale for such in-symmetric desgin
from the mail archival. Since Faults have been changed so many times, I
would like to make sure we still have a common understanding about how
it should work and that no problem are introduced here. 


Without corresponding <infault>/<outfault> in the binding level, here is
how I see it works:

1. How can one figure out which fault an binding operation uses?


This seems do-able without binding level <infault>/<outfault>. Since a
binding operation refers to an interface operation, one should be able
to get the fault message reference from the interface operation, and
then look up the binding <fault> corresponding to the interface <fault>
to figure out. It's do-able, but convoluted. 

2. How can one specify a different fault code, soap module, and maybe
custom binding extensions  for infault and outfault  of an binding


This is also do-able, but again cumbersome -  one has to define
different interface <fault>s for infault and outfault even if they share
a same fault message. 


If this correctly reflects the group's thinking, I will add some text in
the primer accordingly.

Best Regards,

Received on Thursday, 12 May 2005 21:08:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:57 UTC