-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gary Brown
Sent: 05 January 2005 14:25
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Last Call Issue: FAULT HANDLING

The current spec defines WSDL1.1 faults using the InformationType to
relate to the appropriate WSDL Message Type. However, if an operation
has multiple faults, each with the same Message Type, then the only
thing that distinguishes them is the fault name. 

However, the 'interaction' syntax does not support specifying a name
associated with the "respond" exchange, when it is receiving a fault -
it only specifies the Information Type, which in turn only links to the
WSDL message type. The actual fault name is not referenced anywhere.

For consistency across WSDL1.1 and WSDL2, perhaps the InformationType
could refer to the actual type structure (which would be a change
related to the WSDL2 support in the current spec), and then the
'exchange' is changed so that when it is used to receive a fault (i.e.
an ExceptionType), the name field is the actual fault name - which could
map onto WSDL1.1 and WSDL2.


Gary and Steve

Received on Monday, 10 January 2005 14:50:16 UTC