W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Issue 1008 - Fault Handling

From: Charlton Barreto <charlton_b@mac.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:50:44 -0800
Message-Id: <22b648534d0f008f7cd93bd1fd6d5cf8@mac.com>
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
To: Gary Brown <gary@enigmatec.net>

Hi Gary,

Although we should not let Java APIs fault handling semantics drive any 
constraints on CDL, and we are primarily bound to WSDL, we do have to 
understand that the bindings for such cases w.r.t. WSDL 1.1 do prohibit 
this situation. While WSDL 2.0 is a non-issue in this respect, it 
doesn't make much sense to me to allow CDL to be able to define a 
choreography based on WSDL 1.1 which is inconsistent with what the 
bindings permit, especially when we are otherwise constraining CDL 
w.r.t. WSDL 1.1 in part based on these bindings.

If we wish to add 'faultName' to the exchange to identify such faults 
and support this for WSDL 1.1 exchanges, I feel we need to see a use 
case for this.



On 15/03/2005, at 13:12, Gary Brown wrote:

> 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, 22 March 2005 18:50:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:30 UTC