Re: Issue 192 & R803

I would appreciate a better description.  How does it leave the HTTP 
intermediary out of sync with the SOAP/HTTP processors?  Why does a 
fault have to be any more than just a message in this case?

Ray Whitmer
rayw@netscape.com

Mark Baker wrote:

>>Ray Whitmer writes:
>>
>>>>Great, I can live with that.
>>>>
>>Terrific, thanks.  Now let's see whether anyone else can :-).
>>
>
>Sorry, but I can't. 8-(
>
>The more I think about it, the more this is an R803[1] issue.  It is
>critical, for the chameleon use, that a HTTP intermediary participating
>in a chain of SOAP/HTTP intermediaries, have a consistent view of what
>the SOAP/HTTP processors understand to be success or failure.  Because
>in the chameleon view, this is all happening, SOAP and HTTP, at the
>same layer in the stack.
>
>If I understood your suggestion correctly, you're saying that a
>receiving SOAP processor should treat a fault received over 200, even
>after acknowledging that it's broken, as a fault.  Doing this would
>leave the HTTP intermediary out of sync with the SOAP/HTTP
>processors, as it has no knowledge of this SOAP-specific heuristic.
>This would violate R803.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlp-reqs/#z803
>
>MB
>