[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] issue with use of SOAP Faults
Comments inline Tom Rutt Jacques Durand wrote: > In section 4.5 the requirement to use SOAP Faults in specific cases, > may not be feasible: > > Because the RMP is unable to distinguish a message that belongs to a > Req-Resp MEP, from one > taht belongs to a One-Way, it is not clear how the RMP can behave > differently based on this: > - One-Way should not return SOAP Faults in HTTP response (to be WS-I > 1.0 compliant) > - but Req-Resp are required to do so in case below: > > "In case of a Request-Response WSDL operation type, when > the message cannot be passed to the consumer due to a > failure in processing the RM headers, and therefore no > application response can be returned, a SOAP Fault MUST be > returned. If the RM Fault is a Message Format fault, a > SOAP client fault MUST be returned. If it is a Message > Processing fault, a soap:server fault MUST be returned. > > The latter case also applies to responses to duplicate > messages that are not delivered. In case a "Response" > ReplyPattern was required, the RM-Reply MUST be returned > in the header of the SOAP Fault message..." > > The intent here , if I remember, was to make sure that the lack of > application response would be escalated properly as a fault / > exception to the Sender app (or "producer"), which would be achieved > by adding a SOAP Fault in the HTTP response. > Since there is no return message information , and the sender is expecting a response in the soap body, the soap fault is the only way to give a valid return for this case. > One way out of this would be to link the use of SOAP Faults in HTTP > responses to the > replypattern "Response", instead of to the WSDL op type > (The response reply pattern is supposed to be used only for WSDL > Req-Resp ops.) > I think that is how I read the text above, it is the response reply pattern which triggers the production of the soap fault in this case. > Also, in case replypattern is something else: do we still need to use > SOAP Faults? (I don't > believe there is a point to it.) > I do not think there is any text in the current document which implies this. I agree, we will not send soap faults for callback or poll response. > Jacques > > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]