Proposed text for issue 170

["Kartha, Neelakantan" <N_Kartha@stercomm.com>]

Title: Proposed text for issue 170

Here is the proposed  text (which is a modification Yaron's text with elements of my original text). Both of the latter
are also included in this message for easy comparison.

Implementer's Note: BPEL treats faults generically, without respect to
which particular transport they have been bound to. Normally, when
sending or receiving a fault, a BPEL would specify generic fault
information in the abstract fault message and then a WSDL 1.1 binding
would transform that generic information into/from specific error
information unique to the transport being bound to. In the case of SOAP
this would mean providing a mapping between generic fault data and the sub elements of of the SOAP Fault element, namely the faultcode, faultstring, faultactor and detail elements. However the WSDL 1.1 standard SOAP binding explicitly precludes

mapping any information from an abstract fault message to a SOAP
Fault other than the contents of the detail element. In other words there is no
standard way to specify information in a BPEL that will eventually be
bound into the faultcode, faultstring and faultactor elements of a SOAP
Fault element. This specification does not provide a resolution for this problem.

Location: I am fine with 13.4 or 11.4 Thoughts?

Here is my original text (written  independently of Yaron's text):

BPEL does not support any way of getting or setting faultcode, faultstring or faultactor in sending, receiving, throwing or catching a fault. The following provides the rationale: Recall that faultcode, faultstring and fautlactor are sub elements iof the Fault element as defined by the SOAP 1.1 standard. The definition of a SOAP fault binding according to WSDL 1.1 specification only provides for binding to the detail element (a sub element of the SOAP Fault element) and not to the SOAP Fault element itself. Because a BPEL message variable is defined via WSDL definitions, it can only contain the content of a detail element, not faultcode, faultstring or faultactor.

I was planning to include it in section 13.4 (right above the start of section 13.4.1).

 Here is Yaron''s text:

Insert after the paragraph in section 11.4 that begins "Note that the
<reply> activity corresponding to a given request has two potential forms."

Implementer's Note: BPEL treats faults generically, without respect to
which particular transport they have been bound to. Normally, when
sending or receiving a fault, a BPEL would specify generic fault
information in the abstract fault message and then a WSDL 1.1 binding
would transform that generic information into/from specific error
information unique to the transport being bound to. In the case of SOAP
this would mean providing a mapping between generic fault data and
SOAP's fault code, fault string, fault actor and fault description
values. However the WSDL 1.1 standard SOAP binding explicitly precludes
mapping any information from an abstract fault message to a bound SOAP
fault other than the fault description. In other words there is no
standard way to specify information in a BPEL that will eventually be
bound into the fault code, fault string and fault actor values of a SOAP
fault. This specification does not provide a resolution for this problem.

Best Regards,

Kartha

n_kartha@stercomm.com
469-524-2639