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

Proposed text for closure of issue 45

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:51:44 -0400
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Message-ID: <20010830145144.K13295@jibboom.w3.org>
[ Preamble: I think that issue 45 is almost closed; see the note at
  the bottom. ]

Issue 45[1]:

  Should there be a predefined set of fault codes that apply
  specifically to RPC? Examples would include errors for missing
  parameters, out of range values, etc.

Decision of the Working Group:

  The Working Group decided to define a set of faults specific to RPC
  requests. It is believed that the added section addresses issue 45.

Text inserted in the specification[2]:

   The RPC representation introduces additional SOAP fault codes to those
   described in Fault Codes. The namespace identifier for these SOAP
   faultcode element information item values is
   "http://www.w3.org/2001/06/rpc" and the namespace prefix rpc: is used
   in this section to indicate association with this namespace.
   
   Errors arising during RPC invocations are reported according to the
   following rules (in order of precedence):
    1. A soap-env:Server fault SHOULD be generated when the server cannot
       handle the message because of some temporary condition, e.g. when
       it is out of memory.
    2. A soap-env:DataEncodingUnknown fault SHOULD be generated when the
       arguments are encoded in a data encoding unknown to the server.
    3. An rpc:ProcedureNotPresent fault MUST be generated when the server
       cannot find the procedure specified.
    4. An rpc:BadArguments fault MUST be generated when the server cannot
       parse the arguments or when there is a mismatch between what the
       server expects and what the client has sent.
    5. Other faults arising in an extension or from the application
       SHOULD be generated as described in SOAP Faults.
   
   In all cases the values of the detail and faultstring element
   information items are implementation defined. They MAY be specified by
   some external document.

Note:

  Part 2 of the spec has the following editorial note[2]:

   Editorial note: MJH                                       20010810
   The following paragraph conflicts with the first paragraph of Fault
   Codes

  and part 1 reads[3]:

   Editorial note: MJH                                        20010810
   The following paragraph seems to be contradicted by the rules in RPC
   Faults. Specifically, a new namespace is used and new codes are
   introduced.

  The paragraph that Marc is refering to is:

   The SOAP faultcode values defined in this section MUST be used as
   values for the SOAP faultcode element information item when describing
   faults defined by this specification. The namespace identifier for
   these SOAP faultcode values is
   "http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope". Use of this namespace is
   recommended (but not required) in the specification of methods defined
   outside of the present specification.

  I am not sure that there really is conflict, since the RPC faults
  are described "outside of the present specification". In any case, I
  think that we need to remove those two editorial notes before
  closing issue 45. Marc?

  1. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x45
  2. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/29/soap12-part2.html#rpcfaults
  3. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/29/soap12-part1.html#faultcodes
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 14:51:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT