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

Re: Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:28:35 -0000
Message-ID: <011301c1612d$a318f930$977ba8c0@greyarea>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
We might want to consider Issue 130[1] at the same time.

Gudge

[1] ] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x130

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>; "Marc Hadley"
<marc.hadley@sun.com>; "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:09 AM
Subject: Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names


> Issue 143 below is currently marked as editorial:
>
>      Table speaks of 'Client' faults and 'Server' faults. I
>      think that this is the only place where the notion of
>      'Client' and 'Server' arise. Concepts of 'Client' and
>      'Server' are not developed anywhere in the document.
>
>      It seems to me that 'Client' is more akin to 'Sender'
>      and 'Server' is more akin to 'Recipient'. Regardless,
>      I'm not sure personnally that 'Client' and 'Server' are
>      appropriate distinctions to make in a generic SOAP
>      messaging framework.
>
> The editors suggest that, in the prose, we amend 'Client' to read
> 'Sender' and 'Server' to read 'Receiver'.
>
> However, the editors wonder whether they sould also be changing
> the fault codes to match. Advantage: this would make the spec
> more consistent. Disadvantage: possible impact on existing
> implementations.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 05:29:29 GMT

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