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

Re: Fault HTTP status 500

From: Pete Hendry <peter.hendry@capeclear.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 22:25:08 +0100
Message-ID: <3BC36B34.A1D15F52@capeclear.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, xml-dist-app@w3.org

Mark Baker wrote:
> Therefore, not using 200 is probably the best design decision if a single SOAP/HTTP
> binding is to be created.

The creation of this binding is what I see as a problem. It means that we also then need to specify the binding for
other 'carriers' such as JMS. I'd rather SOAP was isolated from whatever way it is transported and then there is no need
to define error handling characteristics for the 'carrier' (or whatever term you prefer). SOAP will just exist within
its carrier and deal with errors itself. It seems like a specification overhead to define how it fits into each
'carrier' as regards error handling.

Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 17:25:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC