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

RE: A minor question

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:16:11 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B6338051E7A49@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I've not seen an answer to this question, so here goes;

A fault is just a reply. So the relationship would be reply. You can
tell it's a fault because SOAP defines a fault message very

Anyone have another answer?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
> Sent: 08 March 2005 10:56
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: A minor question
> Why do we predefine a "reply" relationship but not a "fault" 
> relationship?  The idea would be that a fault would be tagged with 
> (fault, requestMID) as opposed to (reply, requestMID).
> I had expected to see this as a resolved issue in the issues 
> list, but 
> apparently not.  I haven't trawled through the mailing list 
> archives, so 
> apologies if it's already been done to death.
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2005 22:16:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:24 UTC