RE: Who Faulted (was RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, section 2 (l ong) )

Hi Jean-Jacques,

Good catch! I think it also leads us back (again) to asking what we wish to
accomplish as a consequence of generating a fault.

Thanks,

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: 31 January 2002 08:51
> To: Williams Stuart
> Cc: 'Jacek Kopecky'; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Who Faulted (was RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, 
> section 2
> (l ong) )
> 
> 
> I think this whole discussion is pointing out an inconsistency
> between section 4.4.3 "SOAP faultactor Element" and section 2
> (with or without the ed's proposed rewrite).
> 
> Specifically, section 2 introduces the notion of roles, which
> nodes play. IMO, this section places a greater emphasis on roles
> than on nodes. In contrast, section 4.4.3 is mute about roles
> (see quote below), which I find quite disturbing since a node is
> allowed to play multiple roles. I would be tempted to say that
> the faultactor attribute really ought to identify not just the
> node that faulted (coarse-grained), but the exact role in which
> that node operated (fine-grained).
> 
>      "faultactor [...] is intended to provide information
>      about which SOAP node on the SOAP message path caused
>      the fault to happen [...]. It is similar to [...] SOAP
>      actor [...] but instead of indicating the target of a
>      SOAP header block, it indicates the source of the
>      fault. The value of [...] faultactor [...] identifies
>      the source of the fault.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> PS. You guys never seem to go to bed.
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 05:24:07 UTC