W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2002

RE: HTTP binding & faultHint

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:48:48 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192A40@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Mark,

I think that's a good catch. I think faultHint is only discussed in the
context of the requesting node as well. I think it perhaps also needs to be
used in the transition from Processing to Sending at the responding node.

The bulk of the material in the HTTP binding was written ahead of the
resolution of Issue 12 (HTTP status codes and faults, loosely described as
500 v 200).



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: 18 March 2002 18:53
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: HTTP binding & faultHint
> All,
> I also noted what I believe to be an error in the state 
> transition table
> in section  The "faultHint" property is only used on a 500
> response, not on any of the 4xx responses.  Related to this, 
> is that the
> 4xx responses have the next state of "Fail", despite it being very
> likely that a SOAP fault could be in the response.  I believe that all
> of these (due to RFC 2616 saying that each 4xx response SHOULD have a
> body) require that their next state to be "Receiving", and the
> "faultHint" property to be set to "true".
> BTW, I expected to see faultHint described in the binding 
> framework, but
> did not.  It needs some documentation.
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 04:50:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:48 UTC