- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:35:06 -0400
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Whoops, meant to send this to dist-app. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@macromedia.com> To: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 1:34 PM Subject: Re: new MU Fault header > Since any fault will be generated by a single node (faulting will stop the > message from progressing to the next hop), I believe the faultactor field > already covers this. > > --G > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com> > To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> > Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 1:08 PM > Subject: new MU Fault header > > > > With the new MU fault header we return a list of the > > headers that were not understood - should we consider > > adding something (an attribute?) that tells which SOAP > > Node generated the fault? In a multi-hop message path > > it might be nice for the Node receiving the fault to know > > which Node didn't like the message. I guess this could > > apply to all faults not just MU faults. > > -Dug > > >
Received on Saturday, 21 July 2001 13:37:26 UTC