- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:14:52 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Again, I'd prefer SHOULD instead of MAY, because the latter
suggests that issuing a different fault in such a condition is
perfectly OK.
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>
> Minor nit - in section 4.3 in part 2, it is stated that the
> "rpc:ProcedureNotPresent" Subcode MUST be used in the following case:
>
> A fault with a Value of "env:Sender" for Code and a
> Value of "rpc:ProcedureNotPresent" for Subcode MUST
> be generated when the receiver does not support the
> procedure or method specified.
>
> However, there is nothing in the message that indicates that a SOAP
> message is following the RPC convention and nothing that prevents the
> RPC convention from being used selectively in the SOAP receiver (if at
> all). As a result it is not possible for the SOAP receiver to know
> whether a message is following the RPC convention or not nor whether it
> should respond using this fault or not. In other words, this requirement
> is not enforceable.
>
> I would therefore suggest that we change it to a "MAY" so that it says
>
> A fault with a Value of "env:Sender" for Code and a
> Value of "rpc:ProcedureNotPresent" for Subcode MAY
> be generated when the receiver does not support the
> procedure or method specified.
>
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.html#rpcfaults
>
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 04:15:13 UTC