- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:44:24 +0100
- To: <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Mark! > - 2.3.1: Why is it advantageous to define a fault at the Interface > level, if it's just repeating information in the operations? I suggest > either removing this functionality or better motivating it. The proposal[1] for making faults first class citizens of the interface followed discussions[2] at the Sunnyvale F2F regarding a number of issues surrounding faults defined in separate operations, in particular joining multiple faults from multiple operations in multiple bindings, and recognising if two faults defined in separate operations were in fact identical. Seven months on i think there is still consensus to keep the status quo, and the hoisting of faults still resolves several tricky issues as well as being a useful communication - a clear enumeration of all the abstract faults which may be generated by an interface. So i say we should follow your suggestion and provide more explanatory text either in Part 1 or the Magnus opus that has become the Primer. Paul [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Dec/0046.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0059.html
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 14:45:09 UTC