W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > September 2004

Clarificatioin for binding fault

From: Liu, Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:36:53 +0200
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0B1C1333@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Cc: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Unlike interface faults, no binding operation level <infault> and <outfault> constructs are provided in the LC draft. I don't recall and can not trace discussion on the rationale for such in-symmetric desgin from the mail archival. Since Faults have been changed so many times, I would like to make sure we still have a common understanding about how it should work and that no problem are introduced here. 
Without corresponding <infault>/<outfault> in the binding level, here is how I see it works:

1. How can one figure out which fault an binding operation uses?
This seems do-able without binding level <infault>/<outfault>. Since a binding operation refers to an interface operation, one should be able to get the fault message reference from the interface operation, and then look up the binding <fault> corresponding to the interface <fault> to figure out. It's do-able, but convoluted. 
2. How can one specify a different fault code, soap module, and maybe custom binding extensions  for infault and outfault  of an binding operation?
This is also do-able, but again cumbersome -  one has to define different interface <fault>s for infault and outfault even if they share a same fault message. 
If this correctly reflects the group's thinking, I will add some text in the primer accordingly.

Best Regards,

Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 00:37:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:31:00 UTC