W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2005

Re: Proposed Text for What Should Be Declared as a Fault in WSDL

From: Neil Hudson <nahudson@sqc.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:31:46 +0000
Message-ID: <MWnUTnEydMdDFw$Q@sqct.demon.co.uk>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org

I recently needed clarification and had to ask a question on this list 
about what should items be included as faults in an interface. The 
replies and this new section would have answered most of my issues. 
However there
is a further question I had about binding specific faults.

If an interface is reusable across different bindings then any faults 
should be common to all bindings and so I assume it would not be a good 
idea to describe binding specific faults in the WSDL interface. 
Therefore could it also be an idea to include in this text a statement 
that the faults described in the Interface must not be binding specific. 
Maybe binding specific faults never have application level semantics but 
(a) there are always odd cases and (b) people could always get the wrong 
end of the stick and start to list them.

Perhaps this is too rigorous to state as an absolute and it should be 
something along the lines of "... generally Faults should not binding 
specific and binding specific Faults should only be described in 
exceptional circumstances.".

This also begs the question if you do want to highlight binding specific 
faults because they  have some meaning to the application where should 
this happen?  Should there be a fault list associated with bindings that 
includes faults that are not in the interface?

Neil Hudson CEng MBCS MIEEE
British Computer Society Registered Consultant
SQC Technology Limited
Phone : +44(0)1283 763632
Fax   : +44(0)1283 763631
Email : nahudson@sqc.co.uk
Web   : http://www.sqc.co.uk
Received on Friday, 11 November 2005 16:32:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:54 UTC