- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:20:15 -0400
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
On Apr 8, 2005, at 3:08 PM, David Orchard wrote: > > Let's assume that a 4/5xx indicates a possible SOAP fault then. The > sender may generate something to put in a body or not, the receiver > won't know what it is until it gets it. I don't think there's any way > that we could write up which error codes will or won't have a body, so > we just have to live with it. > > The receiver of a 4/5xx has to wait to find out whether there is a > body or not. C'est la vie. If they got a SOAP fault, they can pass > it up. If it's not a SOAP fault, then there may be some other way of > passing an error back up, but it's not in the SOAP MEP. > > My point was that in-optional-fault is better than in-optional-out, > which you haven't responded to. We've clarified expectations on > in-optional-fault, but I can't tell which mep proposal you support. > To be honest I don't think there's much to choose between them. I think we should just go with optional-in, optional-out and be done with it. Marc. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marc Hadley [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM] >> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:53 AM >> To: David Orchard >> Cc: David Hull; public-ws-async-tf@w3.org >> Subject: Re: MEPS Part II: SOAP >> >> On Apr 8, 2005, at 2:11 PM, David Orchard wrote: >> >>> I think this is good work, where you are going. It certain is >>> similar >>> to the work that I published. There are some unanswered questions >>> though. >>> >>> 1. Should there be an in-optional-out or in-optional-fault or both >>> soap meps? I'm leaning towards in-optional-fault because I think >>> that >>> the SOAP MEP layer needs to be self-describing wrt responses, and I >>> don't see any value in an in-optional-out where the out could be not >>> a >>> fault. The logic for HTTP: >>> >>> - One-way: http response codes ignored, sender/receiver know that >>> response body can't be generated. >>> >>> - Request-response: http response codes relevant: 2xx indicates a >>> SOAP >>> BODY response, 4/5xx indicates SOAP FAULT response, 404 indicates no >>> SOAP BODY or FAULT response. Senders and receivers know whether to >>> wait or not depending on the status code. >>> >>> - In-optional-fault: http response codes relevant, FAULT only in >>> 4/5xx >>> (excluding 404). Sender and receiver know exactly what can be sent. >>> >> I don't buy that 4/5xx indicates a SOAP Fault response. It *may* >> indicate that but it might equally indicate that something went wrong >> in my HTTP infrastructure *before* any SOAP processing occurred and >> the >> entity body could include some HTML error message. >> >> --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 8 April 2005 19:20:19 UTC