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

Re: working on fault changes

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:47:03 +0600
Message-ID: <0b6501c406c7$b83d2510$c8d418ac@watson.ibm.com>
To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

OK thanks Tom. I'm going with stuff in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0013.html

and it looks like there are no operation-specific fault bindings.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>
To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 11:02 PM
Subject: RE: 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
>
> 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 12:47:49 GMT

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