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

RE: proposal for faults

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:40:24 -0700
Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB8031FA32E@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
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?

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 22:41:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:34 UTC