- From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:31:22 -0500
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Martin Gudgin wrote: >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 >specifically. > > > Makes sense to me. >Anyone have another answer? > >Gudge > > > >>-----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 22:32:02 UTC