- From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:27:16 -0800
- To: <chinthaka@wso2.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thank you for this comment. The Working Group this issue as a CR091 [1]. The latest editor's draft [2] describes how the fault element structure becomes the value of the Detail element. Unless you let us know otherwise within 2 weeks, we will assume you agree with the resolution of this issue. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR091 [2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html ?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#soap12-defaults Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Eran Chinthaka > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:00 AM > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: WSDL 2.0 Fault Binding > > > Hi, > > I have a primitive question on SOAP binding of faults :) > > Assume a fault is defined in an operation, and let's assume the fault is > referring to the element foo in the types section. When a fault occurs > how would be the SOAP message looks like? Where will this Foo element go? > > From my little WSDL 1.1 knowledge, Foo element comes under Detail > element, when it is a SOAP 1.2 fault. Is this the same for WSDL 2.0? > > Where should this be defined? I can not find details on this in any of > the docs of the spec. Seems I am missing something some where :( > > The spec mentions that one can specify about Code and Subcode to be used > inside the binding element. But there is no mentioning anywhere about > the above case. > > If you want me to more clear on this, please look at the GreatH wsdl > (http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb//2002/ws/desc/test-suite/documents/good/GreatH- > 1G/). > When the server throws an InvalidDataFault, how will the SOAP message > coming to the client from it. What should it contain? > > I presume the fault should be bound to Detail element, but like to have > a confirmation on this. > > > Thanks, > Chinthaka >
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:27:27 UTC