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

Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion

From: David Crowley <dcrowley@scitegic.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:31:30 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org

If the use case of asking the server to return the last fault is important, 
then it should be important not just for the HTTP binding but for all 
bindings.  I would like to know how other transports and bindings 
should/would handle this use case?  It seems to me that relying on 
information outside of the SOAP Envelope to determine how to interpret the 
meaning of the Envelope or the Fault is dangerous.  Would it make sense to 
add an attribute flag to the fault, something like fakeFault="true"?



At 05:50 PM 3/27/2002, Mark Baker wrote:
>I don't think I have any more to add to this discussion at this point.
>It's the same old issue that we've never come to an agreement on.
>So, what I can extract from this discussion is this;
>- everybody likes the resolution to issue 12
>- I like the current state tables in our HTTP binding, specifically
> (of the latest editor's draft), as it reflects my view
>that a fault can only be processed as a fault when received with a 4xx
>or 5xx response code, i.e. FaultHint is never set on a 2xx (hmm, it's
>still only set on 500, not 4xx).
>- Noah and Chris appear to want to change to say that if a
>fault is received on a 2xx, then FaultHint would be set to true.
>Does that capture the current state of things?
>Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
>Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
>http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2002 21:32:47 UTC

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