[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 030 - Proposal 2 silence on WS-A faults
>> > In one dimension, I think you are right to logically group the Invalid > State and Invalid Parameters with the WS-A SOAP Binding predefined > faults: they report "bozo bugs" (non-conformant implementation errors > that ought to get eliminated in testing, like the malformation errors > that can occur at the WS-A level). > > In another dimension, as Max points out, they belong in WS-TX because > they are logic error faults at the WS-TX layer. I think that his > argument against layer violation is compelling. You could argue that > they are unnecessary faults, i.e. that they SHOULD or MAY be sent to > help debugging and testing, but I think they belong to WS-TX, and > should use its mechanisms. > On the one hand I agree, but on the other hand (and as pointed out yesterday in a separate email response to Max), this is an argument that spans more than just this TC: TX may not be the only group that believes wsa:FaultTo as being useful only at a certain "level" of the protocol stack (essentially WS-A related problems). It's also potentially just an implementation detail: there is no reason at all that wsa:FaultTo couldn't be used to direct TX specific faults to the right "layer" in the protocol stack. Mark.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]