[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Fault message formats
Since the TC members are clearly opposed to using the SOAP Fault element to convey fault information related to WS-Context messages, I will refrain from further comments on the subject. However, I thought the group might be interested in the results of a very unscientific and incomplete research to see how some other specifications handle faults. I divided specs into 3 categories. First there were specs that either did not directly define messages or did not specify a WSDL document. BPEL and WSFL fall into this category, although the text and examples in WSFL imply that SOAP Faults are intended to be used with the lifetime operations that are defined. The next category is for specs that explicitly do not use the SOAP Fault element. In my quick review I only ran across WS-Reliability for this category. This spec does require the use of the SOAP Fault element in request-response exchanges, but does not put any information in the Fault element, using a SOAP Header element instead. The last category is for specs which use the wsdl:fault element and have text implying the use of the SOAP Fault element. In this category are WS-MetaDataExchange, WS-ReliableMessaging, and WS-Coordination. WS-Coordination is underspecified in the area of faults, but the following statement from the introduction to the section titled "Coordination Faults" is a pretty strong indication of the intent: "For example, when used with SOAP 1.2 the identifier code is the fault sub-code and any additional information is passed in the detail." I think an earlier version of WS-Coordination did define their own fault messages. I also looked at ebXML Messaging. Although that spec talks about using SOAP Faults when the severity is error but not when it is warning, I think it is more like WS-Reliability uses them. It is not very clear in the spec. I did not include specs which build on those listed above such as WS-AtomicTransaction, or other ebXML specs. I also did not include the specs this TC is writing or some more contentious specs such as WSRF. This review did not produce any clear direction although it seems that more recently written specs have a stronger tendency to use the SOAP Fault element to convey error information then older specs did. Bryan
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]