- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:07:35 -0700
- To: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50784D751@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Thank you for your comment, tracked as LC56 [1]. The WG resolved this as a duplicate of LC55 [2], which we accepted as described at [3]. If we don't hear from you within two weeks, we'll assume this resolution is satisfactory. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC56 [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC55 [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0022 .html ________________________________ From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 5:37 PM To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org Cc: Jonathan Marsh Subject: Clarificatioin for binding fault 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, Kevin
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2005 21:08:01 UTC