RE: proposal for faults

> Sanjiva Weerawarana [] writes:
> "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <> writes:
> > > but requires one to look at the messageRef value
> > > to determine the fault direction.
> >
> > Is this tied to the proposal to bury the information about direction
> > behind the pattern URI?
> No- not at all. If we select the following syntax:
>     <fault messageReference="xs:NCName" details=".."/>
> then the in-faultness vs. the out-faultness of this fault
> is computed by looking at the value of @messageReference
> and the definition of the pattern in play: if that pattern
> has this fault reference as inbound then its an in-fault
> and vice-versa.

Thanks for the clarification.

Would fault/messageReference resolve to
interface/operation/{input,output}? Or would it resolve to something
defined by interface/@pattern?

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 12:45:41 UTC