- From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:46:52 +0100
- To: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0F676D7D@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
It seems to me the meaning should be governed by the MEP of the specific endpoint where the fault rule defined for the specific MEP applies. See WSDL 2.0 Part 2, section 2.1 [1]. --umit [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-extension s.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] Sent: Thursday, Dec 16, 2004 15:51 PM To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org Subject: new wsa:FaultTo text Actually, another possibility is that no wsa:FaultTo means "treat the fault as the response and send it where ever the response would go". Is either of these the correct intent? thanks, -Dug __________________ All, just noticed this: i029 Disallowing Faults - <http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?hdr-1-name=subject &hdr-1-query=i029&resultsperpage=50&sortby=date&index-type=l&index=publi c-ws-addressing> search core - design - closed Description wsa:FaultTo "may be absent if the sender cannot receive fault messages (e.g. is a one-way application message)." But it also says that in the absence of wsa:FaultTo the wsa:ReplyTo/From may be used. So, how does a sender really say that it doesn't want ANY fault messages at all but still be allowed to specify a wsa:From? Origin <mailto:dug@us.ibm.com> Doug Davis Owner <mailto:hreynolds@webmethods.com> Harris Reynolds Resolution2004-12-07 Add "when present" to the second sentence of [fault endpoint] of Core section three; remove third to fifth sentences of [fault endpoint of Core section three (so as to not imply a processing model); make similar changes in [reply endpoint] definition. And the new text for wsa:FaultTo says: [fault endpoint] : endpoint reference (0..1) An endpoint reference that identifies the intended receiver for faults related to this message. When formulating a fault message as defined in <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-core.htm l#formreplymsg> 3.2 Formulating a Reply Message, the sender MUST use the contents of the [fault endpoint], when present, of the message being replied to to formulate the fault message. If this property is present, the [message id] property is REQUIRED. So, what does it mean when the wsa:FaultTo header is not present? Does it mean the client will not get back any faults at all or does the fault get sent back to the wsa:ReplyTo EPR? Probably not since the defaulting back to wsa:ReplyTo is not mentioned any more. So, what should the client expect in terms of where Faults will go when wsa:FaultTo is not present? As the text stands now I would guess that no wsa:FaultTo is the same as wsa:FaultTo == anonymousURI - meaning send faults back on the HTTP response flow - is this the new intent? thanks, -Dug
Received on Saturday, 18 December 2004 00:47:34 UTC