Issue - 304 - clarification on whether the QName of a fault needs to be unique across all portTypes and operations

[ws-bpel issues list editor <peter.furniss@erebor.co.uk>]

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status of "received". The status will be changed to "open" if a motion to open the issue is proposed and that motion is approved by the TC. A motion could also be proposed to close it without further consideration. Otherwise it will remain as "received".

The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version of the document entitled in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list - the next posting as a TC document will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this constant URL.

Issue - 304 - clarification on whether the QName of a fault needs to be unique across all portTypes and operations

Status: received
Date added: 21 Jul 2006
Date submitted: 20 July 2006
Submitter: Alex Yiu
Description: The spec text related to SA00049:
> "This results in a fault identified in WS-BPEL by a QName formed by the 
> target namespace of the corresponding portType and the fault name. To 
> ensure uniqueness, this uniform naming mechanism MUST be followed  even 
> though it does not match the WSDL’s fault-naming model ..."

Does that text require the QName of a fault to be unique across all portTypes and operations? That is: two different operations within the same portType or two different portTypes of the same TNS define the same fault name (potentially with two different message types). Are these cases of WSDL design legal and usable by WS-BPEL?

It seems to me that the intention of phase "to ensure uniqueness" is unclear. Does it just mean a uniform behavior? Or, it tries to enforce universally unique across all WSDL definitions?

Questions to consider:

• Does WS-I have a similar universally-unique restriction? If not, we may have problems in taking WS-I complaint WSDL pattern?
• With <throw>, one can associate one faultName with more than one faultMessageTypes already. Then, what does this universal-uniqueness restriction buy us in terms of <catch> construct usage?

Changes: 21 Jul 2006 - new issue

---

To comment on this issue (including whether it should be accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 304 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution to an open issue, please start the subject line "Issue - 304 - Proposed resolution", without any Re: or similar.

To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but the address for new issue submission is the sender of this announcement).