RE: Proposal: abstract faults

Sanjiva
 
I think you're right on both counts, so:
 
  <binding>
      <fault name="qname">
        <wssoap:fault faultcode="mntoken"? />
      </fault>
  </binding>*
 
Paul

  
 -----Original Message----- 
 From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
 Sent: Sat 20/12/2003 03:46 
 To: Glen Daniels; Amelia A Lewis; Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C 
 Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
 Subject: Re: Proposal: abstract faults
 
 

 +1 .. operations have QNames to enable inheritance and so should
 faults.
 
 Isn't the binding syntax a bit messed up? I think the fault
 name should be on /binding/fault rather than /binding/fault/
 wsoap:fault IIRC.
 
 Sanjiva.
 
 ----- Original Message -----
 From: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
 To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>; <paul.downey@bt.com>
 Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
 Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 4:57 AM
 Subject: Re: Proposal: abstract faults
 
 
 >
 > +1 to Amy - QNames would be better.
 >
 > --Glen
 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
 > To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
 > Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
 > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 12:44 PM
 > Subject: Re: Proposal: abstract faults
 >
 >
 > >
 > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:37:32 +0000
 > > paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
 > >
 > > > TBH I'd prefer to avoid QNames if at all possible. I thought as there
 > > > was only one interface in a WSDL 2.0, an NCName was sufficient.
 > >
 > > Huh?  Interface inheritance means that, in WSDL 2.0, you could have
 > > lots&lots (that's more than "many", I think) of interfaces in a single
 > > document.  And lots&lots&lots more once you start importing and
 > > including.
 > >
 > > > *but* for orthogonality the fault name should be of the same type as
 > > > operation name in the <binding>. Looking at the <binding>, i notice
 > > > the operation name is linked to the interface using a QName.
 > > >
 > > > Does that mean that a binding can refer to an operation in another
 > > > WSDL ?
 > >
 > > In an imported or included WSDL, you mean?  Yes.  Note that import
 > > requires a different namespace than the definitions/@targetNamespace of
 > > the current WSDL.
 > >
 > > Amy!
 > > --
 > > Amelia A. Lewis
 > > Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
 > > alewis@tibco.com
 > >
 > >

Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2003 14:09:52 UTC