[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 68 - Proposal for vote
Could we call the new attribute "faultMessageType" instead of "faultType" for consistency with the meanings of the "type" and "messageType" attributes in explicit variable declarations? Jim Clune Parasoft Corporation email: jim.clune@parasoft.com 101 E. Huntington Ave. voice: (626) 256-3680 Monrovia, CA. 91016 fax : (626) 256-6884 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> To: "Jim Clune" <jim@parasoft.com>; <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> Cc: "Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 68 - Proposal for vote Good question. It is currently interpreted as a WSDL message type since the faults received from a web service invocation were the original canonical faults and all BPEL variables were message variables so all internal faults were also of that kind. Now that we have XML typed variables there is a potential inconsistency with throw that we should fix separately - Yaron was just pointing it out to me. To summarize: this is a bug fix that reminds us of another potential bug that we may need to fix. Satish -----Original Message----- From: Jim Clune [mailto:jim@parasoft.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:51 AM To: Satish Thatte; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 68 - Proposal for vote Satish - Is the faultType value to be interpreted as a WSDL message type or an XML Schema type? Jim Clune Parasoft Corporation email: jim.clune@parasoft.com 101 E. Huntington Ave. voice: (626) 256-3680 Monrovia, CA. 91016 fax : (626) 256-6884 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com> To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:01 PM Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 68 - Proposal for vote I propose that we change the syntax of faultHandlers to the following <faultHandlers>? <!-- there must be at least one fault handler or default --> <catch faultName="qname"? faultVariable="ncname"? faultType="qname"?>* activity </catch> <catchAll>? activity </catchAll> </faultHandlers> And in addition I propose that we add the following sentences immediately following the syntax. Note that the faultName, faultVariable and faultType attributes are all optional. However, the faultVariable and faultType declarations go together, i.e., they must either both be present or both absent. This is to ensure that the type of the faultVariable is well specified even when the faultName is omitted. Moreover, the faultName and faultVariable attributes cannot both be absent. Satish To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgr oup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]