W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 21:37:26 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D06F996AE@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

>Now I'm confused. 8-/  I used to believe this, when I thought that
>faultHint was authoritative, but now I wonder how you could say that
>when, AFAICT, nowhere in the binding does it distinguish between a
>fault received on a 200 response, and one received on a 500 response.
>Both end up in the success state, and only the faultHint distinguishes
>one from the other.

I thought we said that the former is simply broken - it won't happen if
the implementation is conformant with the SOAP HTTP binding?

>> FWIW, I don't think the
>> notion of a fault-hint is useful and would be happy with it not being
>> there.
>Woohoo, agreement! 8-)

Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 00:37:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:19 UTC