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

RE: Issue 192 & R803

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 11:26:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB0102C3C6@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'Martin Gudgin'" <marting@develop.com>, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org

+1 !!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:marting@develop.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:38 AM
> To: Christopher Ferris; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 192 & R803
> 
> 
> 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#stru
ctinterpbodies
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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 11:27:18 GMT

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