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

Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:42:35 -0500
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020403154235.F20848@www.markbaker.ca>
Henrik,

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 09:37:26PM -0800, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> >Now I'm confused. 8-/  I used to believe this, when I thought that
> >faultHint was authoritative, but now I wonder how you could say that
> >when, AFAICT, nowhere in the binding does it distinguish between a
> >fault received on a 200 response, and one received on a 500 response.
> >Both end up in the success state, and only the faultHint distinguishes
> >one from the other.
> 
> I thought we said that the former is simply broken - it won't happen if
> the implementation is conformant with the SOAP HTTP binding?

Yes, that would be better than the status quo.

It still doesn't address my issue completely, as I would expect that
SOAP implementations would be "liberal in what they consume".  So,
without a spec that says anything to the contrary, they would likely
treat a fault on 200 as a fault.  And that would yield problems for
HTTP intermediaries, which my company produces.

Perhaps we should just call this a non-chameleon binding (as David just
mentioned), and agree that it isn't suitable for use with all HTTP
intermediaries.  At least that way we won't have people thinking that it
was.

I would agree to close issue 192 if we said that.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 15:50:23 GMT

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