Re: Issue 192 & R803

+1

I don't think this solves any problems, does it?.  I'd also be surprised
if it didn't break something in the spec, because of some written-in
assumption about the existing structure.  Somebody would have to check
that.  Anyhow, it seems quite a drastic change to make this late in the
process.

I also don't see how it impacts 192/12.  The same question - what does a
fault over 200 mean - can be asked even with this new envelope
structure.  But I'll respond about that shortly ...

MB

On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:58:29AM -0800, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> Hmm, from an architectural point of view, I am somewhat uncomfortable
> make a fault special in this regard - it seems to break orthogonality
> between the envelope and faults. IMO, even though we in part 1 define a
> SOAP fault as the only "message-type", processing-wise the SOAP fault is
> separate from the envelope in that it defines its own semantics (what
> does "faultcode" mean etc.)
> 
> >From a practical point of view, it also seems to make the description of
> the envelope more complicated as it would mean that we can't talk about
> the body anymore as a unique thing. I think we already have the
> possibility for carrying SOAP fault EII even though they may not "count"
> as faults because a SOAP fault is *only* a SOAP fault in the processing
> sense *if* it is located as the first child EII of the body EII.
> 
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
> 
> >I think that if people want to transmit other stuff with the 
> >fault then it
> >goes in 'detail'. We place zero restriction on what goes in there...

-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com

Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 15:24:54 UTC