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

RE: Issue 292: Which fault code takes precedence BadArguments or MissingId

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 03:27:50 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02682104@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I think my approach was simpler ;-)

But I also think that your approach would work. I just want to avoid
having to spell out all the possible combinations.

Gudge


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com] 
> Sent: 01 September 2002 15:44
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 292: Which fault code takes precedence 
> BadArguments or MissingId
> 
> 
>  Gudge,
>  I don't know if I agree with this simple resolution. If we make 
> it so, we lose the information that an ID was missing. 
>  I believe the ideal solution is one where the fault code is 
> env:Sender/rpc:BadArguments/enc:MissingID. I think we can 
> achive this by saying in [2] that "if other subcodes are 
> available (e.g. MissingID if SOAP Encoding is used), they 
> SHOULD be subcodes to the BadArguments subcode".  What do you think?
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 
>  > 
>  > I propose we close this issue[1]  by adding text to[2] 
> stating that the  > rpc:BadArguments faultcode takes 
> precedence over the MissingID faultcode  > ( and others of 
> that ilk )  > 
>  > Gudge
>  > 
>  > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x292
>  > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#rpcfaults
>  > 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 06:28:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT