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

Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:26:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203280326.WAA10660@markbaker.ca>
To: dcrowley@scitegic.com (David Crowley)
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> If the use case of asking the server to return the last fault is important, 
> then it should be important not just for the HTTP binding but for all 
> bindings.

For all application protocol bindings, yes, I believe so.  Transport
protocols, when used rather than extended, expose no notion of "failure"
or "success", so it's not a concern.

But yes, my proposed solution to this issue when I raised it[1] was this;

"1) update the binding framework to state that each binding should
declare that the authoritative determinant of whether a message is a
fault or not should be the underlying protocol"

(though that was intended to be only for application protocols)

>  I would like to know how other transports and bindings 
> should/would handle this use case?  It seems to me that relying on 
> information outside of the SOAP Envelope to determine how to interpret the 
> meaning of the Envelope or the Fault is dangerous.  Would it make sense to 
> add an attribute flag to the fault, something like fakeFault="true"?

I suppose that's equivalent to the "wrapping" proposal that Chris and
Stuart discussed.  For transport protocols, this may be of value.  For
application protocols, it's redundant IMO, since the application
protocols themselves are the wrapper.

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0007.html

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, 27 March 2002 22:21:26 GMT

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