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 17:47:28 +0100
Message-ID: <01b801c1db2f$3f3d1c80$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I think that if people want to transmit other stuff with the fault then it
goes in 'detail'. We place zero restriction on what goes in there...

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Issue 192 & R803


> +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 11:46:27 GMT

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