W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2001

RE: [soapbuilders] mustUnderstand on client side

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:11:57 -0700
To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0297CB56@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

The basic SOAP processing model described in [1] doesn't know about
servers or clients but only "SOAP processors" which is the reason why
SOAP in general walks a fine line when talking about *generating* a
fault vs. *sending* a fault. The latter is only mentioned in the HTTP
binding and the RPC convention as these two talk about "requests" and
"responses". That is, SOAP distinguishes between generating a fault and
sending a fault message somewhere.

Within the context of a request/response model, I think the right thing
for an HTTP client that cannot accept/obey the SOAP message semantics is
to fault the processing or to suggest that the message is saved for
later processing by a more savvy processor. The latter is similar to
what clients do when receiving a response with an unknown media type.

It is important that a SOAP processor doesn't break the processing model
and merely ignores the SOAP rules just because it may not be in a
position where it can notify the sender about the fault.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383491

Doug Davis wrote:
>I see 3 choices:
>  1 - ignore it
>  2 - fault back to the server
>  3 - fault back to the client
>While 2 is probably what "should" happen, I doubt many
>will be able to support this.  1 seems most likely, but
>scares me.  3 seems like a nice middle of the road solution.
>Paul Kulchenko wrote:
>Since it's possible to return Header from server to client 
>also, what should client do if this header has mustUnderstand 
>attribute or wrong actor?
Received on Sunday, 22 April 2001 22:12:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC