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

Re: Proposed Text for What Should Be Declared as a Fault in WSDL

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:19:19 -0500
To: Neil Hudson <nahudson@sqc.co.uk>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFEDBAB3BA.B5B2B9E8-ON852570B7.001A0361-852570B7.00283669@ca.ibm.com>
Neil,

Thx for the suggestion, however WSDL 2.0 makes a clear separation between 
the abstract Intefrace, which is independent of binding details, and the 
concrete Bindings. Interface Faults are clearly part of the Interface 
layer, so it would be redundant to say they shouldn't be binding-specific.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



Neil Hudson <nahudson@sqc.co.uk> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
11/11/2005 11:31 AM

To
www-ws-desc@w3.org
cc

Subject
Re: Proposed Text for What Should Be Declared as a Fault in WSDL








I recently needed clarification and had to ask a question on this list 
about what should items be included as faults in an interface. The 
replies and this new section would have answered most of my issues. 
However there
is a further question I had about binding specific faults.

If an interface is reusable across different bindings then any faults 
should be common to all bindings and so I assume it would not be a good 
idea to describe binding specific faults in the WSDL interface. 
Therefore could it also be an idea to include in this text a statement 
that the faults described in the Interface must not be binding specific. 
Maybe binding specific faults never have application level semantics but 
(a) there are always odd cases and (b) people could always get the wrong 
end of the stick and start to list them.

Perhaps this is too rigorous to state as an absolute and it should be 
something along the lines of "... generally Faults should not binding 
specific and binding specific Faults should only be described in 
exceptional circumstances.".

This also begs the question if you do want to highlight binding specific 
faults because they  have some meaning to the application where should 
this happen?  Should there be a fault list associated with bindings that 
includes faults that are not in the interface?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Hudson CEng MBCS MIEEE
British Computer Society Registered Consultant
------------------------------------------------------------
SQC Technology Limited
Phone : +44(0)1283 763632
Fax   : +44(0)1283 763631
Email : nahudson@sqc.co.uk
Web   : http://www.sqc.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2005 07:19:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:37 GMT