Re: Issue 1008 - Fault Handling

Hi

My view is that we should not be constraining CDL based on the way Java APIs 
deal with faults. We are primarily bound to WSDL, and if WSDL allows a 
service to be declared with an operation having multiple named faults, all 
of the same type, then we need to be able to define a choreography that 
fully supports that operation.

I think we simply need to add a 'faultName' attribute to the exchange which 
can be used to identify the fault - possibly only relevant if the associated 
information type is an exception type? - or to be more generic we could just 
re-use the 'name' attribute.

Regards
Gary

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charlton Barreto" <charlton_b@mac.com>
To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Issue 1008 - Fault Handling


>
> In general, Java Web Services provide two approaches to handling faults - 
> deserializing them as Exceptions or processing the message directly in a 
> handler. If an operation throws multiple faults with the same message type 
> as in WSDL 1.1, where these faults are differentiated solely by name, only 
> the latter approach provides any mechanism to distinguishing them. Once 
> the fault is deserialized into an Exception there is no way to 
> differentiate between faults having the same message type.
>
> Generally the lower level language bindings prohibit this situation, 
> recognizing it as a degenerate scenario. As such, unless someone can come 
> up with a good use case for this, I would propose that CDL should strongly 
> recommend against it, rather than provide facilities to support it.
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2005 21:12:44 UTC