W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2003

Re: Question on action item

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:07:35 -0800
Message-ID: <3FD61D77.3040106@oracle.com>
To: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

Amelia A Lewis wrote:

>Dear Jacek,
>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:23:47 +0100
>Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com> wrote:
>>I was wondering about the case where a service providing an operation
>>that may result in faults is configured so that no faults are sent
>>(presumably for security reasons). I don't think that the WSDL of the
>>service should change because of this policy.
>I understand this, but I don't think that this *can* or *should* be
>expressed in the fault ruleset.  The fault ruleset, IMO, ought to be
>unequivocal about the behavior expected of a service advertising a
>particular MEP.  I could see a security feature redefining that
>behavior.  But I can't see an "invisible" (not-advertised) feature
>allowing the service to discard faults.  The client of the service has a
>reasonable expectation of consistent behavior, based on advertised
>(included-in-WSDL) description.  For an operation defined using
>message-triggers-fault or fault-replaces-message, that expectation is
>that when a fault is generated, it is sent, unless there is no path to
>send it by.  If that behavior is advertised-as-changed by a required
>feature (security-through-/dev/null), I could see it, but that's layered
>on top of the ruleset, not built into it.

>All IMO, of course.  Was this part of the discussion when the
>'editorial' action item was created?  I don't think that it's editorial

Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2003 14:13:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:36 UTC