Re: A minor question

On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:53:52AM -0800, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > (to www-archive)
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:27:38PM -0800, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > > All messages for which the XPath I gave below evaluates to 
> > true are SOAP
> > > faults. 
> > > All messages for which the XPath evaluates to false are not 
> > SOAP faults.
> > 
> > I understand that position.  It's self-consistent, and also consistent
> > with many toolkit implementations.  But it's also not in the spec, 
> 
> The following language is in the spec
> 
> "To be recognized as carrying SOAP error information, a SOAP message
> MUST contain a single SOAP Fault element information item as the only
> child element information item of the SOAP Body ."

Yes, you pointed this out before.  But as I pointed out, it doesn't
say what you think it says.

> which is what I drew my (sloppy) XPath from.
> 
> > and
> > more importantly, inconsistent with the HTTP binding.
> 
> I don't know what the HTTP binding has to do with this discussion. 

As part of the SOAP 1.2 specification, it prescribes behaviour which
is inconsistent with your position.

> > Let's keep it simple and say that the last fault message is 
> > bit-for-bit
> > identical with the fault that would be returned from 
> > getLastFault if it
> > succeeded.  In other words, the last fault was a fault with
> > getLastFault.
> 
> I don't believe that's allowed per SOAP 1.2 Part 1. If you really want a
> getLastFault then the returned fault information must be wrapped in some
> other element (either in the body or a header).

Right, it isn't permitted by your interpretation of the spec, which is
rather odd, no?  That there's no standard way of doing something as
simple as that?  Seems like a clear layering/separation-of-concerns
problem to me.

But when using the HTTP binding, I need only return the fault via an
HTTP 2xx response to distinguish it from a fault returned via a HTTP
4xx or 5xx response, to accomplish that task.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 15:16:11 UTC