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

proposal for faults

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:34:55 +0600
Message-ID: <038201c38789$ef576fa0$72545ecb@lankabook2>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

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

<definitions>
  <interface>
    <operation>
      <infault
            name="xs:NCName" 
            messages="list of xs:QName" >
        <documentation />?
      </infault>
      <outfault
            name="xs:NCName" 
            messages="list of xs:QName" >
        <documentation />?
      </outfault>
    </operation>
  </interface>
</definitions>

I propose we use the following instead:

<definitions>
  <interface>
    <operation>
      <input ../>*
      <output ../>*
      <fault messageReference="xs:NCName" details="xs:QName"/>
    </operation>
  </interface>
</definitions>

where @messageReference indicate the message in the pattern 
that this fault element is declaring concrete detail information
for, and @details indicates the XML element which represents 
all the data that is available if/when this fault occurs. The
direction of the fault (inbound vs. outbound) is implied by
the value of @messageReference (see my messages about how 
operation/input and operation/output are redundant for further
details). 

In component model-speak, I propose that a fault reference
component have two properties:
    - a {message reference} property, ala that of message references
    - a {details} property indicating an element defining the contents
      of the fault message

The binding message reference components [3] for referring to faults
from inside a binding would also need to change to be consistent with
this approach. Basically, instead of:

<definitions>
  <binding>
    <operation>
      ...
      <infault
            name="xs:NCName" >
        <documentation />?
      </infault>
      <outfault
            name="xs:NCName" >
        <documentation />?
      </outfault>
    </operation>
  </binding>
</definitions>

I propose:

<definitions>
  <binding>
    <operation>
      ...
      <fault messageReference="xs:NCName">
        <documentation />?
      </fault>
    </operation>
  </binding>
</definitions>

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. 

Sanjiva.

[1] http://tinyurl.com/p7m5
[2] http://tinyurl.com/p3dg
[3] http://tinyurl.com/p7t4
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 15:35:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:26 GMT