W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > February 2006

RE: Possible bug in SOAP 1.2 description of fault generation

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:33:37 -0800
Message-ID: <1E3F69A9B653D94CB49EBB8A0E7D20DC096735D8@RED-MSG-41.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>


Noah,

I can see how that can be confusing. I think your second rewording
captures the intent well:

* "Failure is indicated by the generation of a fault (see 5.4 SOAP
Fault) SOAP message processing MAY result in the generation a SOAP
fault; more than one SOAP fault MUST NOT be generated when processing a
SOAP message."

Thanks for taking time to iron this out although I am not sure what the
best process is to capture this as an erratum.

Henrik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 07:37
> To: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Martin Gudgin
> Subject: Possible bug in SOAP 1.2 description of fault generation
> 
> While reviewing the processing model section of SOAP 1.2 [1], I
noticed
> that it says:
> 
> "Failure is indicated by the generation of a fault (see 5.4 SOAP
Fault).
> SOAP message processing MAY result in the generation of at most one
> fault."
> 
> Taken literally, that seems to say:  "you probably want to generate at
> most one fault, but we don't strictly preclude the alternative, which
> would be generating more than one fault."   That's not what we meant.
I
> think what we intended would be better covered by either of the
> following
> two rewordings:
> 
> * "Failure is indicated by the generation of a fault (see 5.4 SOAP
> Fault);
> SOAP message processing MUST result in the generation of at most one
> fault
> for each message processed."
> 
> -or-
> 
> * "Failure is indicated by the generation of a fault (see 5.4 SOAP
> Fault).
> SOAP message processing MAY result in the generation a SOAP fault;
more
> than one SOAP fault MUST NOT be generated when processing a SOAP
> message."
> 
> Note that in any case, the paragraph that follows correctly says:
> 
> "A message may contain or result in multiple errors during processing.
> Except where the order of detection is specifically indicated (as in
2.4
> Understanding SOAP Header Blocks), a SOAP node is at liberty to
reflect
> any single fault from the set of possible faults prescribed for the
> errors
> encountered. The selection of a fault need not be predicated on the
> application of the "MUST", "SHOULD" or "MAY" keywords to the
generation
> of
> the fault, with the exception that if one or more of the prescribed
> faults
> is qualified with the "MUST" keyword, then any one fault from the set
of
> possible faults MUST be generated."
> 
> I don't think anyone is confused about what we meant, which is:
generate
> at most one fault.  I wonder whether a rewording should be issued with
> the
> next set of errata?  Does anyone remember if there was a reason we
> worded
> it this way?  Thanks.
> 
> Noah
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#procsoapmsgs
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 17:34:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:29 GMT