Re: WSDL 2.0 Fault Binding

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Looks great now. Thanks.

- -- Chinthaka

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF1U6hjON2uBzUhh8RArKaAKCfQGticRNjUlb5D+hmT93LXiQIegCglIWA
S5UskcPSqyqN/Da20a0dnD0=
=NXIC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 16 February 2007 06:27:00 UTC