RE: proposal for faults

> 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