W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2005

binding fault defaulting?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 20:19:06 +0200
To: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1116526746.21179.96.camel@Kalb>

Hi all, 

I'm using WSDL 2 in our Semantic Web Services thing here and I have to
explain very shortly how WSDL works. Now I got to the point that faults
cannot be defaulted in SOAP binding.

I checked the HTTP binding and it surprised me a bit that whttp:code is
optional and when it's omitted, no claim is made by the service. 
I interpret that as "the implementation can choose" and if I was
implementing this, I'd probably initially choose just always to send 500
(internal server error) if the service didn't specify and I'd be
conforming to the HTTP binding, right?

Why cannot we have the same situation in SOAP? I mean, HTTP 4xx is
equivalent to a Sender SOAP fault code and HTTP 5xx is equivalent to a
Receiver SOAP fault code, therefore if we are OK with HTTP defaulting to
500 (in my potential implementation), we could likewise be OK with SOAP
defaulting to Receiver (or whatever the implementation chooses).

I suggest that we change the SOAP binding to make wsoap:code optional
and when omitted, no claim is made by the service.

In my simple works here, I find the requirement of providing wsoap:code
somewhat unwieldy as it destroys the nice defaultability of the binding.

I searched the issue lists and only found a relevant issue (LC52c) where
we say that fault codes are not defaultable, but this is in conflict
with what we happily do in HTTP binding. I expect this might be new
information for LC52c (sorry about that) or possibly a new issue. 8-)

Best regards,

Jacek
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2005 18:19:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT