RE: proposal for faults

• From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
• Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:39:19 -0700
• To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB8031FA329@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.mi>

> Sanjiva Weerawarana writes:
> 
> The current draft [1] has fault reference components [2] as unfinished
> business. The status quo is:

Agreed.

> I propose we use the following instead:
> 
> <definitions>
>   <interface>
>     <operation>
>       <input ../>*
>       <output ../>*
>       <fault messageReference="xs:NCName" details="xs:QName"/>
>     </operation>
>   </interface>
> </definitions>

<snip/>

> Faults defined as above would have a natural default SOAP
> binding: the details element goes inside the <details>
> element of a SOAP fault. Other bindings can define suitable
> binding rules.

For the SOAP binding, it would be great to define the value of
Fault/Code/Value, Fault/Code/Subcode/Value, Fault/Reason/Text as well as
Fault/Detail. I can see a point of view that suggests we don't need to
describe the human-readable Fault/Reason/Text, but the others are key to
machine recognition of the specific fault. (Fault/Node and Fault/Role
would be generated at runtime.)

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 22:41:00 UTC