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

RE: working on fault changes

From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:02:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB06CFA65F@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> I'm trying to get the fault stuff changes into the editor's draft.
> Paul/Tom, is this the latest on faults:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0064.html

I think this is what we started with at the January F2F at Sonic.

We tweaked it at the meeting, so the minutes of this discussion should be
helpful in figuring out what we decided.

We definitely wanted to have per binding faults, but if I can't remember if
we also wanted to allow per operation overrides....

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 1:41 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: working on fault changes


I'm trying to get the fault stuff changes into the editor's draft.
Paul/Tom, is this the latest on faults:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0064.html

If so why aren't we allowing binding of faults independent of
operations? That is, instead of the following from above:

   <binding>
     <operation>
       <(in|out)fault name="qname">
         <wssoap:fault>*
           ....
         </wssoap:fault>*
       </(in|out)fault>*
     </operation>*
   </binding>*

why not say:

   <binding>
     <fault name="qname">
       <wssoap:fault>
         ....
       </wssoap:fault>*
     </fault>*
   </binding>*

Do we even need operation specific fault bindings? I think we can
do without them.

I looked thru the archives for the fault thread and get the feeling
that Paul's final summary had operation-specific fault bindings
instead of operation-independent fault bindings as a typo. Paul can
you confirm??

Sanjiva.
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 12:03:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT