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

Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:46:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203191946.OAA24060@markbaker.ca>
To: jacek@systinet.com (Jacek Kopecky)
Cc: henrikn@microsoft.com (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen), xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek,

>  Mark,
>  if by saying "faults received with 200 OK should not be treated
> as faults" you mean "they should be treated as an OK response", 
> I object to your proposal.

Yes, that's what I mean.  It's also what we've agreed to in order to
resolve issues (as Henrik pointed out), and what is in the current
version of the spec.

>  My proposal (and understanding) is that the two following HTTP
> responses should be treated as transport errors:
> 
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> ...necessary HTTP headers...
> 
> <env:Envelope ...necessary namespaces and stuff...>
>   <env:Body>
>     <env:Fault>
>       <faultcode><value>env:Receiver</value></faultcode>
>       <faultstring>foo</faultstring>
>     </env:Fault>
>   </env:Body>
> </env:Envelope>
> 
> 
> HTTP/1.1 500 server error
> ...necessary HTTP headers...
> 
> <env:Envelope ...necessary namespaces and stuff...>
>   <env:Body>
>     <m:MyFault>
>       <code>15</code>
>     </m:MyFault>
>   </env:Body>
> </env:Envelope>
> 
>  If I understand your position correctly, you would see the first 
> example as perfectly OK, right?

Right.

> (I'm not sure about the second, 
> please clarify if that's an error or OK.)

That's an error too.  But it's good you raise this, because I don't
recall us saying what a processor needs to do if it doesn't receive a
fault in a 4xx or 5xx response (other than what is specified in the
state transition model).

>  I think REST principles can be OK with my proposal, on the other
> hand tunneling principles are completely blown away with your
> proposal. (Just like REST principles are completely forgotten if
> we transmit faults with only 200 OK, whereas tunneling principles
> can live with 5xx and 4xx for faults.)
>  If I'm confusing REST with something else here, please do point 
> it out, I want to grok REST to be able to argue with you soundly 
> (if I'm not converted in the process.)

Nope, I think you've got it exactly right.  I hadn't considered that
this would "blow away" the tunneling use of SOAP, but I guess you're
right.

Two bindings anyone? 8-(

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 14:41:53 GMT

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