Re: Proposal: map HTTP fault codes to interface faults

Hi Paul.

* paul.downey@bt.com <paul.downey@bt.com> [2004-05-27 17:47+0100]
[..]
> Proposed Syntax
> ---------------
> 
> we copy/re-use the SOAP fault component as follows:
> 
>   <binding>
>     <http:binding methodDefault="xsd:string"? />
> 
>     <fault ref="xs:QName"
>            http:codes="list of xs:int" >
>       <documentation />?
>     </fault>*
> 
>     <operation>
>        .....
>     </operation>
>    </binding>
> 
> Whilst this doesn't provide wild-carding or ranges of fault codes, 
> it does provide the ability for a list of individual fault codes to 
> be grouped, described and targeted at an individual abstract fault.
[..]

I'm not sure why we would need to indicate more than one. In the SOAP
fault component that you based your proposal for example, only one
SOAP fault can be attached to a fault component[1].

> Rationale
> ---------
[..]
>   - describing HTTP faults at the abstract level is orthogonal 
>     with our SOAP/HTTP binding.

Actually, not completely, as the SOAP HTTP itself defines a binding of
errors to HTTP faults[2]: 4xx for client errors, and 5xx for server
errors.

If we adopt your proposal, we should add some text about that.

Regards,

Hugo

  1. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-bindings.html#soap-fault-decl
  2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#http-reqbindwaitstate
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/