RE: A minor question

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] 
> Sent: 18 March 2005 07:16
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: www-archive@w3.org
> Subject: 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.

I must have missed that mail...

Are you saying that there should be an extra statement along the lines
of

"All messages that have a single SOAP Fault EII as the only child EII of
the SOAP Body are SOAP fault messages."

?

If so, I'll ask the WG to add it to the SOAP 1.2 Errata.

> 
> > 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.

I think the only bit of the SOAP 1.2 spec that was relevant to the
original question was Part 1. But I guess we've digressed.


> 
> > > 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?  

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.

I guess no one on the WG thought it was important enough to standardize.
Perhaps you'd like to write a WS-Fault spec?

> 
> 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.

I don't think that works due to me reasons given earlier in this thread.
But I think you might be saying there's a bug in the HTTP binding. That
it should use 200 OK even for SOAP Fault messages. I'm not sure I'd
argue with that...

Gudge

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

Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 15:39:40 UTC