- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:19:19 -0500
- To: Neil Hudson <nahudson@sqc.co.uk>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFEDBAB3BA.B5B2B9E8-ON852570B7.001A0361-852570B7.00283669@ca.ibm.com>
Neil, Thx for the suggestion, however WSDL 2.0 makes a clear separation between the abstract Intefrace, which is independent of binding details, and the concrete Bindings. Interface Faults are clearly part of the Interface layer, so it would be redundant to say they shouldn't be binding-specific. Arthur Ryman, IBM Software Group, Rational Division blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/ phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411 fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca Neil Hudson <nahudson@sqc.co.uk> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 11/11/2005 11:31 AM To www-ws-desc@w3.org cc Subject Re: Proposed Text for What Should Be Declared as a Fault in WSDL 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 Saturday, 12 November 2005 07:19:29 UTC