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

RE: Comments - WSDL 2.0 Core

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:44:24 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF22E3@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Mark!

> - 2.3.1: Why is it advantageous to define a fault at the Interface
> level, if it's just repeating information in the operations? I suggest
> either removing this functionality or better motivating it.

The proposal[1] for making faults first class citizens of the interface
followed discussions[2] at the Sunnyvale F2F regarding a number of
issues surrounding faults defined in separate operations, in particular
joining multiple faults from multiple operations in multiple bindings,
and recognising if two faults defined in separate operations were 
in fact identical.

Seven months on i think there is still consensus to keep the status quo,
and the hoisting of faults still resolves several tricky issues as well as 
being a useful communication - a clear enumeration of all the abstract
faults which may be generated by an interface.

So i say we should follow your suggestion and provide more explanatory 
text either in Part 1 or the Magnus opus that has become the Primer.

Paul

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Dec/0046.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0059.html


Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 14:45:09 GMT

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