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

Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:16:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203281516.KAA17961@markbaker.ca>
To: highland.m.mountain@intel.com (Mountain, Highland M)
Cc: PMAppleton@bemis.com ('Appleton Pete M'), xml-dist-app@w3.org
> If we try to make the SOAP fault (or lack of) mirror (or respect) the HTTP
> status codes, then we are making SOAP tied into HTTP, and *not* protocol
> independent. 
> </Pete wrote>
> 
> +1

Well, to respond to Pete, I'm not trying to tie SOAP faults to HTTP
status codes, I'm just tying it to HTTP in the HTTP binding.

> Mark,
> 
> The SOAP application layer is interested in the SOAP fault.  Ultimately, it
> is the sender of the SOAP request/msg that needs to be notified of the SOAP
> fault.  Pardon my ignorance of Transport Intermediary processing, but please
> describe a scenario where a SOAP processing fault, wrapped in a 200 HTTP
> message, would hinder a transport intermediary from assuming such roles as
> proxy, gateway or store and forward node.  

Let's say I had a HTTP proxy that tracked my purchasing habits for me.
If a SOAP fault came back on a 200 when I submitted a purchase order,
my proxy would assume that the purchase was successful when it was not.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 10:11:50 GMT

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