- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:43:46 +0100
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- CC: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
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.) > I don't understand why making the fault a child of the envelope instead of the body breaks orthogonality with the envelope or changes the processing model - could you elucidate further ? > 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. > In the spec we don't say anything about the fault having to be the first child EII of the body, only that it must be a direct child and that there should only be one fault EII. We don't disallow other EIIs within the body along with a fault and we don't say anything about processing the fault or any EIIs that may accompany it. Regards, Marc. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 05:43:54 UTC