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

Re: Who Faulted (was RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, section 2 (l ong) )

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:51:24 +0100
Message-ID: <3C59058C.F5C0D200@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@systinet.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
I think this whole discussion is pointing out an inconsistency
between section 4.4.3 "SOAP faultactor Element" and section 2
(with or without the ed's proposed rewrite).

Specifically, section 2 introduces the notion of roles, which
nodes play. IMO, this section places a greater emphasis on roles
than on nodes. In contrast, section 4.4.3 is mute about roles
(see quote below), which I find quite disturbing since a node is
allowed to play multiple roles. I would be tempted to say that
the faultactor attribute really ought to identify not just the
node that faulted (coarse-grained), but the exact role in which
that node operated (fine-grained).

     "faultactor [...] is intended to provide information
     about which SOAP node on the SOAP message path caused
     the fault to happen [...]. It is similar to [...] SOAP
     actor [...] but instead of indicating the target of a
     SOAP header block, it indicates the source of the
     fault. The value of [...] faultactor [...] identifies
     the source of the fault.


PS. You guys never seem to go to bed.
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 03:52:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:18 UTC