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

Re: Issue 192 & R803

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:25:18 +0100
Message-ID: <3CAB2CEE.2070705@sun.com>
To: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
CC: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1, good idea !

The Body EII is pretty redundant when a fault is carried since: "a SOAP 
Fault MUST appear as a direct child of the SOAP body and MUST NOT appear 
more than once within a SOAP Body". Unless we think that it's valuable 
to be able to carry additional EIIs along with the fault. If so we don't 
currently talk about what a node should do if the body contains stuff in 
addition to a fault...

Marc.

Martin Gudgin wrote:

> 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
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 


-- 
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 11:25:25 GMT

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