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

Re: Proposal for hierarchical fault codes

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:16:53 +0100 (CET)
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
cc: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111080911480.5341-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Rich, Gudge,
 do you mean SOAP Encoding instead of SOAP RPC rules? What do you
mean by SOAP fault being transmitted using SOAP RPC rules?
 Anyway, I also like the flat approach (and the latest with
'value' and 'sub' differenciation) best, but I think I could live
with the fully hierarchical approach as well. 8-)
 I mean, the flat approach results in more pleasing XML (IMO),
that's why I like it. With the differenciation between 'value'
and 'sub' (or however we call it) the hierarchy is still
apparent.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Rich Salz wrote:

 >
 > > Err, and why is this more difficult with the attribute based approach. I can
 > > just as easily map an XML attribute to the ORPCTHAT as I can an XML
 > > element...
 >
 > I was being too subtle, perhaps.  I meant that if the SOAP fault uses
 > XML attributes, then a SOAP fault can't easily be transmitted using SOAP
 > RPC rules.  (Just like DCOM uses ORPCTHAT to convey exception
 > information back to the client.)
 >
 > The rest of it -- hackiness of nested elements, parsing awkwardness, etc
 > -- is just opinion, so we can note it and move on.
 > 	/r$
 >
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 03:16:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT