- From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:40:24 -0700
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana writes: > > I think that's a "bad" pattern. If a pattern can result in differnt > faults, IMO it should name each one differently and in the pattern > description say clearly that only one of f1 .. fn will occur etc.. > That way the WSDL mapping of a fault message reference to an actual > element has a unique mapping and its very clear what that means. Perhaps I have misunderstood your point here, but this is not the current design of the patterns, so this proposal has the difficult task of proposing a simultaneous change there. The current abstraction of the pattern URI is quite consistent: it does not define specific message types nor specific fault types. Requiring it to do the latter when it does not do the former seems completely unreasonable. Would the request-response pattern URI definition define application-level faults to the request? --Jeff
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 22:41:07 UTC