- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 12:40:56 -0800
- To: "rama krishna" <crkrishna29@yahoo.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thanks for your comment. The WS Description Working Group tracked this as a Last Call comment LC347 [1]. During the development of the specification we discussed nearly identical proposals at some length. The Working Group reached a difficult compromise on this topic, as reflected in the current drafts, and was unwilling to reconsider the design at this point in our cycle. If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this satisfies your concern. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC347 -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of rama krishna Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:35 AM To: www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: Interface definition I was reading through the WSDL 2.0 primer. I see a new addition where the fault is defined outside the operation but inside the interface for reusability. This logic can be extended for other messages as well ( input and output). Quite frankly it seems redundant to declare the fault again inside the interface. Fundamentally faults are no different than output messages. Only thing the service provider responds with it when the normal processing doesnt happen. They should be treated like output messages. Declaring the message type ( in schemas/types) and using it in the Operation should be good enough similar to the other messages. ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 20:41:15 UTC