- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:01:59 +0200
- To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Cc: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Marc, thanks for pointing this out; I couldn't quite find this in the errata for SOAP 1.2 at http://www.w3.org/2003/06/REC-soap12-20030624-errata.html but the resolution of LC322 is clear enough and I must have completely missed this. We might want to seek official clarification from XMLP on which way the spec should be interpreted. 8-) If detail *can* carry header-related fault details, this particular subissue vanishes. 8-) Best regards, Jacek On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 14:15 -0400, Marc Hadley wrote: > On Jun 13, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote: > > > > From an implementation POV, it is quite convenient to deal with > > SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 errors/faults in same/similar way. Given the > > stmt pointed out by Jacek in SOAP 1.2 part 1 (that the Detail EII > > is intended for error info related to SOAP Body), I would like to > > suggest that whatever mechanism we adopt to resolve issue LC56 also > > be extended to SOAP 1.2. This would make: > > 1) error processing for SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 very similar (would use > > the same headers for carrying fault details). > > 2) resolve LC 72 > > 3) keep the spirit of SOAP 1.2 Detail EII. > > > IIRC, the quoted text from SOAP 1.2 is the subject of an errata[1] > that strikes the 'related to the SOAP Body'. Given this I don't think > we should adopt the same approach for the two protocols. > > Marc. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/5A220E02-63EE-11D9-80B7-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM > > > > > -Anish > > -- > > > > Jacek Kopecky wrote: > > > >> Mark, this is not an issue that I personally care about much, it's > >> just that > >> WS-Addressing seems to violate this statement in the SOAP spec: > >> "The Detail element information item is intended for carrying > >> application specific error information related to the SOAP Body." [1] > >> Even though this has been uncovered after the end of the LC > >> period, it > >> should probably be fixed before CR, and the scope of LC56 seems > >> limited > >> to SOAP 1.1, but this should be correct in both supported SOAP > >> versions. > >> Best regards, > >> Jacek > >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#faultdetailelement > >> On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 13:06 +0200, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> > >>> Jacek, > >>> > >>> As you may know, our comments period is over. However, I'd note > >>> that the issue you raise seems to be similar to that in lc56 > >>> [1], and as such is likely to be covered when we discuss that > >>> issue. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> 1. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc56 > >>> > >>> On Jun 3, 2005, at 6:30 PM, Jacek Kopecky wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi again, > >>>> > >>>> as a followup to the original issue quoted below, after reading > >>>> Anish's > >>>> proposal [1], I noted a further issue. > >>>> > >>>> The problem is, SOAP (at least 1.2) says that header-related fault > >>>> details must be headers, not in fault detail. WS-Addressing > >>>> faults are > >>>> arguably header-related, therefore the details should probably be > >>>> formulated as headers. See SOAP 1.2's NotUnderstood header [2]. > >>>> > >>>> Hope it helps, > >>>> > >>>> Jacek > >>>> > >>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/ > >>>> 2005Jun/ 0003.html > >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapnotunderstood > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 17:26 +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> as an LC comment for WS-Addressing, I'd like to note that in > >>>>> SOAP 1.2, > >>>>> fault detail (the element S:Detail) can only contain element > >>>>> children, > >>>>> which is apparently violated by sections 5.2 and 5.4 of WS- > >>>>> Addressing > >>>>> SOAP binding. > >>>>> > >>>>> The sections say, respectively: > >>>>> > >>>>> 5.2: [Detail] [Missing Property QName] > >>>>> 5.4: [Detail] [action] > >>>>> > >>>>> The values (QName, anyURI) must be somehow enclosed in elements > >>>>> (or > >>>>> represented as elements, which is doable for the QName) to be > >>>>> compatible > >>>>> with SOAP 1.2 fault detail. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Jacek Kopecky > >>>>> > >>>>> Ph.D. student researcher > >>>>> Digital Enterprise Research Institute > >>>>> University of Innsbruck > >>>>> http://www.deri.org/ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist > >>> Office of the CTO BEA Systems > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ------------ > >>> > >>> Join CEO Alfred Chuang and CTO Mark Carges on June 15 for a > >>> unique online event, giving you the first look at a new category > >>> of enterprise software built specifically for Service-Oriented > >>> Architecture (SOA). > >>> > >>> Register Now. It's Free! > >>> > >>> http://www.bea.com/events/june15 > >>> > >>> > > > > > > --- > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> > Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems. > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 07:02:06 UTC