- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:08:57 -0500
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
On Mar 10, 2005, at 6:53 PM, Jonathan Marsh wrote: > >>> 7) Section 5 says: "The [action] property below designates >>> WS-Addressing >>> fault messages: http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/fault". But as >>> we're (unfortunately) not defining that URI we should illustrate a >>> different [action] value. >>> >> We can define an action URI for the messages we define (the SOAP fault >> ones), I think this is OK as is but we might want to define individual >> actions for each fault we define rather than using a single action for >> all of them - a new issue ? > > I am perfectly OK with it, since it provides the functionality I asked > for, and was refused, in i049. At the same URI no less! Multiple URIs > is also fine but I can live without it. > There's a key difference between the status quo and your proposal for i049. The status quo defines an action URI for the faults defined by WS-Addressing. Your proposal for i049 (IIRC) was to define a generic fault URI that can be used with any application fault no described in WSDL and to also use that URI for the fault defined by WS-Addressing. With the status quo I can inspect the action URI and determine the type of fault (or at least that it pertains to WS-Addressing usage). With your proposal the action URI would have just said that the message was a fault. Marc. --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Saturday, 12 March 2005 14:08:59 UTC