- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:38:55 +0200
- To: paul.downey@bt.com
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20040603133855.GK16217@w3.org>
* paul.downey@bt.com <paul.downey@bt.com> [2004-06-03 12:57+0100] > > I'm not sure why we would need to indicate more than one. > > In the SOAP fault component that you based your proposal > > for example, only one SOAP fault can be attached to a fault > > component[1]. > > > This does expose some muddled thinking on my part: I placed HTTP > fault codes at the level of SOAP sub-codes, which is a list. > > I considered other possibilities to support ranges of fault codes > such as "4" indicating "4xx" and "40" indicating "40x", and even > splitting the fault code into a code and sub-code akin to SOAP > (code="4", subcode="03"), but felt this was all complex syntactic > sugar for little real benefit. How often would someone want to > describe a range of faults? > > so, i'd also be happy to further simplify the proposal to: > > <fault ref="xs:QName" http:code="xs:int"> > <documentation />? > </fault>* I think it makes more sense to me. > >> - describing HTTP faults at the abstract level is orthogonal > >> with our SOAP/HTTP binding. > > > > Actually, not completely, as the SOAP HTTP itself defines a > > binding of errors to HTTP faults[2]: 4xx for client errors, > > and 5xx for server errors. > > > Agreed that's not orthogonal with the use of HTTP as a > *transport*, but is when using HTTP as an *application* protocol. Oh, I see what you mean now. > The possible of routing a HTTP fault in the HTTP biding to an > interface level fault is consistent with being able to route a SOAP > Fault to an interface fault from the SOAP/HTTP binding. > > Use-Case > -------- > > A Web site provides a service to download mobile phone ring-tones > protecting this invaluable resource using a pay-as-you-go voucher > scheme. > > The service provider offers several mechanisms for accessing the > same resource, which may or may not all described in the same WSDL > document. All the access methods share the same abstract error > conditions: "VoucherMissing", "InvalidVoucher" and "VoucherUsedUp". > > The author for a WSDL document describing the SOAP/HTTP service in > WSDL will be able to describe the SOAP fault codes which indicate > the abstract level faults. > > With this proposal the WSDL document describing the HTTP GET in > WSDL could describe the HTTP fault codes which map onto the same > abstracted faults. Sounds good. Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 09:38:26 UTC