Re: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults


Something along these lines came up at a recent WS-Coordination/WS-Atomic
Transaction/WS-Business Activity interoperability workshop I attended. The
specs. only define "application" level fault messages and in those cases
would recommend a FaultTo, but there are obviously other classes of faults
that the system would like to be informed about, such as those generated by
the underlying transport mechanism. It's impractical purely from a
compositional and modularity perspective to say that the WSDL has to know
about every possible fault that can occur. So a default sounds good.


Mark Little,
Chief Architect,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <>
To: <>
Cc: "Jonathan Marsh" <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults

> We've got rid of the fixed default action URI for fault messages and
> replaced it with a algorithm similar to that for non-fault messages.
> However, I believe we need a fixed URI for people to use when returning
> a fault that is NOT described in WSDL. If my fault isn't described in
> WSDL, I used to be able to use the fixed URI and now I can't because
> it's gone.
> Please can we put the fixed URI (or one like it) back, indicating that
> it is intended ONLY for use with faults NOT listed in the WSDL.
> Note, I am NOT trying to re-open issue 35[1], I just think we missed a
> case, that's all.
> Thanks
> Gudge
> [1]

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2005 12:27:15 UTC