Re: Hierarchical fault codes and RPC

 Marc,
 I agree with your solution.
 It has made me think, though, about the 
DataEncodingUnknown, DTDNotSupported, MustUnderstand faults - are 
these not also more like subcodes to Sender faults?
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Marc Hadley wrote:

 > While adding the resolution of issue 173[1,2] (hierarchical fault codes)
 > to the specification I noticed a problem in part II.
 > 
 > Previously the value of a fault code element was a QName and the RPC
 > section took advantage of this to introduce two new RPC specific error
 > codes. The resolution to issue 173 makes the values of the faultcode
 > element an enumeration with a closed set of values.
 > 
 > We have two choices:
 > 
 > (i) add the RPC specific codes to the enumeration in part 1
 > 
 > or
 > 
 > (ii) change the RPC section to mandate use of a specific fault code
 > value from the existing enumeration and use the new subcode facility to
 > hold the RPC specific fault code.
 > 
 > Personally I prefer (ii) as this is what the subcode facility was
 > designed for. With that in mind I have *temporarily* added solution (ii)
 > to the spec pending a decision one way or the other.
 > 
 > The latest editors draft of parts 1[3] and 2[4] shows how the issue 173
 > resolution and solution (ii) above look in place.
 > 
 > Regards,
 > Marc.
 > 
 > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x173
 > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Jan/0018.html
 > [3]
 > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#faultcodeelement
 > [4] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.html#rpcfaults
 > 
 >

Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 10:01:45 UTC