RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for issue 170 (RESEND)

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

We really need some clarity on this -- anything that BP/WS-I has looked at here?

________________________________

From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com]
Sent: Thu 1/13/2005 5:35 PM
To: Satish Thatte; Kartha, Neelakantan; bpel spec
Cc: Francisco Curbera
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for issue 170 (RESEND)


 
From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:32 AM
To: Satish Thatte; Kartha, Neelakantan; bpel spec
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for issue 170 (RESEND)

	 

	Hi Satish,

	 

	After thought a little bit more on this, I realize I was wrong about headerfault.

	 

	The wsdl1.1 soap binding is very vague on how headerfault should be defined/used, but reasonable guess would be put the whole soap:fault structure under soap:header. If that's the case, even one can define a message that contains elements such as "faultcode", "faultstring" etc, these elements are not in the soap namespace.

	
	[Satish Thatte] ??  The SOAP fault elements are indeed in the standard SOAP envelop namespace.  But of course one can define a message part with the whole SOAP-ENV:Fault GED as the element specification.
	

	[<kl>] you are right if headerfault works differently than bodyfault. However, in case that it follows the body fault pattern and only allow a wsdl fault message to be mapped to soap:fault detail element (which I believe is a reasonable guess and that's why I changed my original assessment), then this is a problem.