[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Proposal to resolve PR26 - Soap Fault with rm-fault
I agree with Doug's suggestions, and have queued this mail for discussion at the Tuesday meeting. Tom Rutt Doug Bunting wrote: > Tom, > > I have a slight (very slight) preference toward a SOAP fault in the > case that an RM fault leads to an unexpectedly empty SOAP Body. > However, this text should be focused specifically on that case since > the producer may not be expecting any consumer payloads. SOAP Body > content (a SOAP fault) would be entirely redundant and itself > unexpected unless a consumer payload was expected. > > To avoid such an over-generalized statement, I would suggest adding > "and a consumer payload was expected" before the comma in both > sentences you propose. > > An editorial nit: Should these two sentences be talking about > "soap:client" and "soap:server" or "SOAP client" and "SOAP server" > faults? Consistency seems necessary here. > > thanx, > doug > > [1] ... whom, I assume, is the target of the SOAP fault. This is a > bit counter-intuitive since the sending RMP hides the SOAP messaging > layer from the producer to some extent. > > > On 02-Jul-04 11:27, Tom Rutt wrote: > >> Proposal to Resolve Issue PR26 – Soap Fault with RM-Fault >> >> The behaviour that an RM-Fault is returned with a soap fault in the >> case that a response >> payload is not available for response reply pattern was part of the >> public review draft >> cd .992. The changes suggested by Sunil would constitute a >> substantive change to the public review draft. >> >> This behaviour works, and provides fault information separately >> tarteted for the rmp and >> the producer. >> >> However the following sentences were inadvertently removed during >> editing after >> CD .992 >> “ >> If the RM-Fault encountered was due to a problem with the request >> header element, a SOAP >> client fault MUST be returned. If the RM Fault encountered was due to >> a problem with processing >> by the receiving RMP (including the inability to return a response >> due to Duplicate Elimination), a >> soap:server fault must be returned. >> “ >> >> We agreed to have section 4.5 only talk about rm faults, so the >> parenthetical statement should be removed. >> >> Proposed Resolution: >> >> Add the following paragraph in Line 1070 of 1.04JacquesContrib, after >> the first sentence of the bullet: >> “ >> If the RM-Fault encountered was due to a problem with the request >> header element, a SOAP >> client fault MUST be returned. If the RM Fault encountered was due to >> a problem with processing >> by the receiving RMP, a soap:server fault must be returned. >> “ >> >> >> Tom Rutt >> > -- ---------------------------------------------------- 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]