RE: Issue 182: Fault Code restriction: "At Most One Fault Proposal"

I agree with you analysis that a fault may not be sent anywhere, but it
seems that there are many ways in which one can detect a failure in
addition to receiving a concrete SOAP fault message. Regardless of how a
fault is detected from the outside, I think it is important that we
provide a deterministic state machine for a SOAP processor. Currently we
provide two final states: "failure" and "non-failure" and as part of
this I think we have to indicate how one gets to these states in all
cases. Otherwise we end up with a funny third "don't know" state.

Henrik

>So, I don't think I regard a mechanism that merely generates faults, or

>even is we go so far as to say (in accordance with the resolution of 
>Issue 102) that an MEP spec. MUST detail the disposition of faults 
>generated during the operation of the MEP, provides us with a reliable 
>mechanism to indicate failure.
>
>Even, if in all cases of failure we mandate the generation of a fault, 
>I think it would be a little unwise to *rely* on that as an "indication

>of failure"... because there are no guarantees that it will be brought 
>to the attention of anyone/thing.