RE: proposal for faults

> Roberto Chinnici writes:
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM> writes:
> >
> >>Plus, for consistency I think we should either keep input/output and
> >>infault/outfault or get rid of both and go with message/fault. (This
> >>keeping in mind that I'm not in favor of defaulting the "pattern"
> >>attribute on an operation.)
> >
> >
> > I also thought about the consistency issue, but I see the use of
> > infault being rather rare .. and hence leaving those for non-trivial
> > patterns to specify via messageReference names is acceptable to me.
> > If someone can show otherwise (that infaults are not rare) I'm
> > happy to be convinced.
> >
> > So in this case I'd like to break the consistency rule and go with
> > just "fault."
> I guess I could live with that. Infaults do seem rare, except when
> you're writing down the conjugate of a in-out-with-fault operation.

We need to be very careful about special-casing these core features of
WSDL because we don't currently imagine how people will use them.
Allowing description of only faults with direction output is an
optimization that will be difficult to defend generally and is likely a


Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 22:41:00 UTC