W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2005

i049: We need a 'default default' action for faults

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:48:02 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A506762F9E@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

The concrete proposal Gudge presents below details the simple changes
required to the WSDL Binding spec.  I here introduce another proposal,
showing the changes necessary to define a fault action URI in the Core
spec, modeled after the predefined relationship type.  Both options seem
workable to me, though naturally I like mine slightly better :-).

Proposal: Update the [action] description in Section 3 of the Core spec
as follows:

[action] : URI (mandatory) 

  An identifier that uniquely (and opaquely) identifies the semantics
  implied by this message.

  It is RECOMMENDED that value of the [action] property is a URI
  identifying an input, output, or fault message within a WSDL port 
  type or interface.  An action may be explicitly or implicitly 
  associated with the corresponding WSDL definition.  Web Services 
  Addressing 1.0 - WSDL Binding[WS-Addressing-WSDL] describes the 
  mechanisms of association.  In some systems there may not be a 
  WSDL description of the fault, in which case the predefined 
  fault action URI (as shown in Table 3-1) MAY be used.  

  Table 3-1. Predefined [action] values 
  URI                             Description  
  ----------------------          ---------------------------
  http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/      Action identifying the message
     addressing/fault             generically as a fault.

  Finally, if in addition to the [action] property, a SOAP Action URI is
  encoded in a request, the URI of the SOAP Action MUST be the same as
  the one specified by the [action] property. 

[and renumber subsequent tables accordingly.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 8:36 AM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Cc: Jonathan Marsh
> Subject: RE: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults
> 
> Mark pointed out to me that we have a 'template' for raising issues.
> So here's the issue using that template which will hopefully be more
> complete and easier for people to get their heads around;
> 
> Title: 'default default' action URI for fault messages.
> 
> Description: The resolution for Issue 35[1] removed 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 a fault isn't described in WSDL, then people used to be able
> to use the fixed URI. That option is no longer available to them.
> 
> Justification: If we don't add a 'default default' then faults not
> described in WSDL will have to define a specific action, whereas they
> might wish to utilize a default fixed value. And they may have nowhere
> to define that specific action because the fault is NOT described in
> WSDL; they can't use explicit association (wsa:Action) because there
> is no where to hang the attribute.
> 
> Target: wsdl
> 
> Proposal:  Add text along the following lines to section 3
> 
> 	3.4 Default Action URI for faults NOT listed in WSDL
> 
> 	In some systems not all faults can or will be listed in a WSDL
> description.
> 	Such faults still need an action URI. Faults not listed in a
> WSDL
> 	description MAY use the following
> 	action URI; http://www.w3.org/ws/2005/02/addressing/fault
> 
> 
> cheers
> 
> Gudge
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i035
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
> > Martin Gudgin
> > Sent: 01 February 2005 09:27
> > To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Cc: Jonathan Marsh
> > 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] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i035
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 23:48:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:08 UTC