W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2004

Re: Proposal: map HTTP fault codes to interface faults

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:38:55 +0200
To: paul.downey@bt.com
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040603133855.GK16217@w3.org>
* paul.downey@bt.com <paul.downey@bt.com> [2004-06-03 12:57+0100]
> > 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].
> 
> 
> This does expose some muddled thinking on my part: I placed HTTP 
> fault codes at the level of SOAP sub-codes, which is a list.
> 
> I considered other possibilities to support ranges of fault codes
> such as "4" indicating "4xx" and "40" indicating "40x", and even
> splitting the fault code into a code and sub-code akin to SOAP 
> (code="4", subcode="03"), but felt this was all complex syntactic 
> sugar for little real benefit. How often would someone want to 
> describe a range of faults?
> 
> so, i'd also be happy to further simplify the proposal to:
> 
>     <fault ref="xs:QName" http:code="xs:int">
>        <documentation />?
>     </fault>*

I think it makes more sense to me.

> >>   - 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.
> 
> 
> Agreed that's not orthogonal with the use of HTTP as a 
> *transport*, but is when using HTTP as an *application* protocol.

Oh, I see what you mean now.

> The possible of routing a HTTP fault in the HTTP biding to an 
> interface level fault is consistent with being able to route a SOAP 
> Fault to an interface fault from the SOAP/HTTP binding.
>
> Use-Case
> --------
> 
> A Web site provides a service to download mobile phone ring-tones 
> protecting this invaluable resource using a pay-as-you-go voucher 
> scheme.
> 
> The service provider offers several mechanisms for accessing the 
> same resource, which may or may not all described in the same WSDL 
> document. All the access methods share the same abstract error 
> conditions: "VoucherMissing", "InvalidVoucher" and "VoucherUsedUp".
> 
> The author for a WSDL document describing the SOAP/HTTP service in
> WSDL will be able to describe the SOAP fault codes which indicate 
> the abstract level faults.
> 
> With this proposal the WSDL document describing the HTTP GET in
> WSDL could describe the HTTP fault codes which map onto the same
> abstracted faults.

Sounds good.

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 09:38:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT