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

Re: Reqs/AM - Comments/Questions

From: Marc J. Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 16:07:28 +0100
Message-ID: <3B014630.C1FC656F@sun.com>
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
CC: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> 
> Doug Davis wrote:
> 
> > There have been discussions in some soap forums about allowing the
> > processing to continue in order to get as many error messages as
> > possible returned to the user.
> 
> As has been said recently, only one fault can currently be returned by a
> message:
> 
>      "If present, the XMLP/SOAP fault MUST appear as an XMLP/SOAP body
>      block and MUST NOT appear more than once within an XMLP/SOAP Body."
> 
> but I agree this seems like an unnecessary restriction.
> 
Letting processing continue after a fault is probably OK if there are no
dependencies between handlers/processors. However if dependencies do
exist then a single failure is likely to cause a cascade of faults
further down the processing chain.

As an example, think about what happens if you have a syntax error on
one line of code and a compiler ignores it and carries on trying to
compile the rest. You generally end up with hundreds of errors all
related to the single initial error. There's no added value in the
hundred extra messages since they wouldn't be there but for the presence
of the initial error.

Marc.

--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Tel: +44 1252 423740
Int: x23740
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2001 12:08:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT