- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:15:49 -0500
- To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Chris Ferris writes: > But let's also be very clear that a fault is > "generated" and that "generated" does not > necessarily imply "transferred" back to the > originator of the message that triggered the > fault. That would be something defined by the > binding specification employed. Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say: "That would be defined by the SOAP MEP, and implemented by the binding's support of the MEP." From [1]: "An MEP specification MUST also include: 1. Any requirements to generate additional messages (such as responses to requests in a request/response MEP). 2. Rules for the delivery or other disposition of SOAP faults generated during the operation of the MEP." I think this is an important distinction. At least in theory, and with apologies to Mark B. who isn't much fond of protocol independence, it should be possible for many applications to be coded with knowledge of the MEP, and no need for direct knowledge of the particular binding used. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapmep -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 03:16:35 UTC