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

Re: Proposal for hierarchical fault codes

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:43:09 -0000
Message-ID: <018901c16872$8b3cc2a0$977ba8c0@greyarea>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@zolera.com>, "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Cc: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@zolera.com>; "XML Protocol Discussion"
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal for hierarchical fault codes


> Gudge, how would we report RPC faults? Would it have to be
> something like (I'm using your latest flat approach, but it can
> be rewritten into any other)
>
> <faultcode>
>   <value>env:Client</value>
>   <sub>rpc:MethodNotFound</sub>
> </faultcode>

Yes, it would look something like this

>
> Or would the enum contain all the faults defined by our spec?

I thing the top level enum should only contain the QNames defined in part 1
but I'm open to argument.

> This would be awkward since RPC is an optional part, so probably
> the former is the way. This could be a nice demonstration in-spec
> of how the faultcodes are meant to work. 8-)

I think we're broadly on the same page

Gudge
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 11:30:18 GMT

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