- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 20:48:51 +0100
- To: "'frystyk@microsoft.com'" <frystyk@microsoft.com>, "'Doug Davis'" <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, dick@8760.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:frystyk@microsoft.com] > Sent: 02 May 2001 19:40 > To: 'Williams, Stuart'; 'Doug Davis' > Cc: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com; dick@8760.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: RE: mustUnderstand on client side > > You probably want to avoid fault storms. However, as SOAP doesn't say > where to send a fault, this restriction seems to be more targeted a > routing module than the base SOAP protocol. Hmmm... maybe. However, a routing module is unlikely to be able to determine that a fault that it is being asked to 'route' arose during the processing of another fault and hence 'supress' the transmission of the message. How would a routing module recognise those faults that it needed to route and those that it needed to drop? Surely, its is the processor processing the original fault that is best placed to exercise self-restraint! > >I also think we should give some thought to what should happen > >if an XMLP processor faults while processing a fault message! > >Missing details can lead to melt down :-) > > Henrik Stuart
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2001 15:49:18 UTC