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

Re: Issue #12 proposed resolution

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:14:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200110032114.RAA27422@markbaker.ca>
To: chris.ferris@sun.com (Christopher Ferris)
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org ('xml-dist-app@w3.org')
Chris,

From my POV, the important things that this section needs to specify is;

1.  How SOAP faults map to HTTP response codes

My proposal[1] covers this clearly (IMO), but this proposal doesn't
mention the types of SOAP faults at all.  As mentioned though, I do
like the idea, as in this proposal, of supporting response codes other
than *00, so I'd like to see my proposal extended in that way.

2.  How SOAP/HTTP applications should recognize faults (the contra
of #1 above)

A SOAP fault returned with a 200 response code should not mean the same
thing as a SOAP fault returned with a 500 response code.  My proposal
addressed this by implicitly requiring (granted, it should have been
stated explicitly) that SOAP faults cannot be sent with a 2xx response
code and still have fault semantics.

3.  How SOAP/HTTP applications should recognize "good" SOAP responses

Just as MarkN discussed at the bottom of [2].  My proposal at the
bottom of [3] needs to be clarified in the context of #2 above.


I also see it as a secondary issue as to what the valid set of response
codes are.  I would be content without anything being written about this.

Do you want me to whip up an alternate proposal?  That way we can compare
them side-by-side and cut-and-paste as necessary.

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jun/0017.html
 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0227.html
 [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0237.html

MB
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 17:11:47 GMT

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