W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2003

RE: proposal for faults

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:45:15 -0700
Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB80327278A@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] writes:
> "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com> writes:
> > > but requires one to look at the messageRef value
> > > to determine the fault direction.
> >
> > Is this tied to the proposal to bury the information about direction
> > behind the pattern URI?
> 
> No- not at all. If we select the following syntax:
> 
>     <fault messageReference="xs:NCName" details=".."/>
> 
> then the in-faultness vs. the out-faultness of this fault
> is computed by looking at the value of @messageReference
> and the definition of the pattern in play: if that pattern
> has this fault reference as inbound then its an in-fault
> and vice-versa.

Thanks for the clarification.

Would fault/messageReference resolve to
interface/operation/{input,output}? Or would it resolve to something
defined by interface/@pattern?
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 12:45:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT