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

Re: more Re: Issue 192 & R803

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:43:46 +0100
Message-ID: <01a601c1db2e$f18d4370$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Two for the price of one! I like it

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:37 PM
Subject: more Re: Issue 192 & R803


> It also gets us around the issue 192/12 debate.
> If a query returns a fault as a child element
> of the Body, it isn't a fault and can be carried
> on a 200 OK.
>
> This is very cool IMO.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Christopher Ferris wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > we can also be explicit in the schema.
> >
> > <xs:element name="Envelope" type="tns:Envelope"/>
> >   <xs:complexType name="Envelope">
> >     <xs:sequence>
> >       <xs:element ref="tns:Header" minOccurs="0"/>
> >       <xs:choice>
> >     <xs:element ref="tns:Body"/>
> >     <xs:element ref="tns:Fault"/>
> >       </xs:choice>
> >     </xs:sequence>
> >     <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
> >   </xs:complexType>
> > </xs:element>
> >
> > It gets around having to say anything about what goes in
> > the Body element.
> >
> > I like this proposal.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Marc Hadley wrote:
> >
> >> +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
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 11:44:13 GMT

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