RE: Faults that are not described in WSDL?

Hi David!
 
i think it's very important for an endpoint to be able to send faults
not described in WSDL given:
 
- it's a common usage pattern in programming models to list the
exceptions you expect to catch or process, and have a wildcard
exception for those not enumerated.
 
- the receiver may have an older version of the WSDL.
In this case receiving an unexpected fault is a fault and therefore
must be understood as a fault.
 
*but* that doesn't answer you concern about how the format and contents
of such faults would be described. i guess the answer here is that this is a 
a binding specific issue. i know what an unexpected fault will look like in the 
SOAP and HTTP bindings, but there may be bindings to transport and serialisations
which don't have a generalised fault model.
 
Paul

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org on behalf of David Booth 
 Sent: Thu 28/10/2004 16:36 
 To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org 
 Cc: 
 Subject: Faults that are not described in WSDL?
 
 


 Part 1 section 2.3.1 says "Note that faults other than the ones
 described in the Interface component can also be generated at run-time,
 i.e. faults are an open set.".
 
 I think this needs clarification.  How can a client application or Web
 service know what additional faults to expect, and what message schemas
 would describe such faults?
 
 --
 
 David Booth
 W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 19:24:49 UTC