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

Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:10:42 -0500
Message-ID: <3C97B762.9050808@sun.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1

I had commented on this in a previous email[1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0017.html


Williams, Stuart wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> 
> Just wanted to record that you and I (at least) had not reached a common
> view about this when this was discussed earlier [1][2] (long messages but
> viewpoint at the end).
> 
> 
>>I wonder how many SOAP 1.1 implementations get it right?
>>
> 
> I don't know that we have actually agreed what "right" is. In particular,
> the use-case that you promote is the 'quoting' of a fault say in response to
> a request to return a copy of the most recent fault generated.
> 
> My own viewpoint is that, given the resolution of issue #12, the transfer of
> a fault in an HTTP POST response with a status code of 2xx is inconsistent
> lies outside the scope of what we attribute meaning to... its an error in an
> implementation.
> 
> Personnally, if the fault quoting use-case *is* of interest to us, I would
> rather was embedded a little more deeply in the response message. A bit like
> giving our answers to the teacher... "The most recent fault that I generated
> was <....>".
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Stuart
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0033.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0041.html
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
>>Sent: 19 March 2002 18:59
>>To: henrikn@microsoft.com
>>Cc: jacek@systinet.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok
>>
>>
>>Henrik,
>>
>>
>>>IMO, the resolution of this issue [1][2] seems to be very clear on the
>>>relationship between a SOAP fault and HTTP status codes so I am I not
>>>sure I understand the discussion about which is a hint and which is not.
>>>
>>As this thread intended to show, I now agree.  Another look at the HTTP
>>binding showed that it appears to be consistent with my views of how
>>faults should be recognized, which is also consistent with the
>>resolution of the issues you cited.
>>
>>Adding the resolution text from those issues should also help make this
>>issue clearer to its audience, but it would still be nice to
>>specifically say "SOAP faults received as part of an HTTP response with
>>a non-4xx or 5xx status code, should not be treated as faults".  I could
>>see this one *easily* being missed by implementors.  I wonder how many
>>SOAP 1.1 implementations get it right?
>>
>>Certainly something to add to our conformance tests too.
>>
>>So, issue 192 appears to be down to just my first proposal, to add a
>>blurb to the binding framework saying that, at the very least, binding
>>designers should be aware of this issue (what I proposed for 192 was
>>more specific, but I could live with this).
>>
>>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 17:11:37 GMT

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