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

Re: Issue 192 & R803

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:38:00 +0100
Message-ID: <016901c1db25$8af80ef0$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Radical suggestion:

In the fault case ditch Body entirely, and replace it with Fault.

<soap:Envelope xmlns:soap='http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-envelope' >
  <soap:Header>
    ...
  </soap:Header>
  <soap:Fault>
    <faultcode>soap:Sender</faultcode>
    <faultstring>You send bad stuff</faultstring>
  </soap:Fault>
</soap:Envelope>

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Issue 192 & R803


> +1
>
> Marc Hadley wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the slow response, catching up on email slowly.
> >
> > I think Noah has identified an inconsistency here and we should open a
> > new issue to make sure we address it.
> >
> > Marc.
> >
> > noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> >> Chris Ferris writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> the .../ultimateReceiver role MUST be capable
> >>>> of "correctly processing" the contents of the SOAP Body EII which I
> >>>> interpret as meaning, if the child of the SOAP Body EII is a SOAP
> >>>> Fault EII, it is a fault, and I process it as such unless there is
> >>>> some SOAP Header block telling me otherwise. That is the SOAP
> >>>> processing model as I understand it.
> >>>>
> >>
> >> That was true, but not any more I'm afraid.  The latest editors' draft
> >> says with respect to body processing [1]:
> >>
> >> "An ultimate SOAP receiver MUST correctly process the immediate
> >> children of the SOAP body (see 5.3 SOAP Body). However, Part 1 of this
> >> specification (this document) mandates no particular structure or
> >> interpretation of these elements, and provides no standard means for
> >> specifying the processing to be done."
> >>
> >> We introduced this formulation during the great debate over body
> >> interpretation.  In the non-fault case, I think I am happy with it.  I
> >> think it also implies that ascribing semantics to a body containing a
> >> fault is optional (or, conversely, you might view the first and second
> >> sentences as contradictory in this respect.)
> >>
> >> In the case of faults, first of all, it contradicts the rest of the
> >> specification in claiming that we mandate no structure for the body.
> >> I suspect we should open an issue at least on that.  My guess is that
> >> (with apologies in advance to Mark Baker) many of us had assumed that
> >> we wanted to mandate not just the structure, but also the
> >> interpretation in the case that a fault was received.  Maybe the issue
> >> should be expanded to include that question as well, though knowing
> >> Mark's views, it may not be easy to achieve quick consensus on a
> >> resolution.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#structinterpbodies
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> >> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> >> One Rogers Street
> >> Cambridge, MA 02142
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 10:36:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT