[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Jacques proposal for Respond primitive uploaded
Latest draft has the following lines (955-960) in section 4.5 which I think is inappropriate: See the mail I sent yesterday. This needs to be corrected. When the Response RM-Reply Pattern is in use and the message cannot be delivered to the Consumer, the underlying protocol response MUST contain a SOAP Fault (in the SOAP Body) in addition to the appropriate RM Fault (in the SOAP Header). The sending RMP and producer expect either a complete response or a SOAP Fault when using the Response RM-Reply Pattern and this requirement satisfies those expectations. Mail I sent yesterday on this topic: Is the above comment specific to Duplicate Elimination case or a generic failure (to deliver) case? If former, then there is NO RM fault for Duplicate messages. So the above should be better qualified as "in addition to the RM Fault if exists one". If it is the latter, why do we need to send *both* RM fault and SOAP Fault. The Sending RMP will convert/translate a RM Fault either as a SOAP Exception or a API specific exception. So we don't need both. If we have to say SOAP Fault is sent, don't we need better sub-codes for interoperability? -Sunil Tom Rutt wrote: I just uploaded Jacques proposal for a Respond Primitive as editing draft 1.01J. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]