W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > October 2010

Re : ACTION-214 Raise JIRA on CXF for latest fault code spec. changes

From: Peter Easton <peaston@progress.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:49:51 -0400
To: "public-soap-jms@w3.org" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6F07B1E4CA74F3469AAA1DA148515F8401466937B7@PSCMAIL02.bedford.progress.com>
I propose that we drop Action-214. 

Action-214 refers to raising a JIRA against CXF in their support for new fault codes defined for the resolution of ISSUE-62 and ISSUE-63. 




There are 2 assertions related to these fault codes:

(targetService) if specified MUST appear in the JMS message in the JMS property named SOAPJMS_targetService. Use fault subcode missingTargetService if specified and SOAPJMS_targetService does not appear.

(soapAction)If specified MUST appear in the JMS message in the JMS property named SOAPJMS_soapAction. Fault subcode missingSoapAction MAY be used if SOAPJMS_soapAction does not appear.

Each of these assertions are composed of 2 requirements of different levels. There are absolute (MUST)requirements on the Web Service Consumer(client) to set JMS properties SOAPJMS_targetService and SOAPJMS_targetService when specified. CXF conforms to these absolute client-side requirements. 

There are optional(MAY) requirements on the Web Service Provider(server) to return fault codes when the above properties are specified but do not appear in the client message. CXF does not implement these optional server-side requirements. If SOAPJMS_soapAction or SOAPJMS_targetService is missing, CXF tries to identify the WSDL operation based on the structure of the SOAP body for dispatching purposes. This is a valid implementation.

Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 20:50:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:24:48 UTC