[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Proposal For Vote - 180
180 - Clarification of WSDL fault declarations and Reply in BPEL Proposal: Mandate that all WSDLs submitted for use with a BPEL MUST use the same message type with the same fault name for all faults defined in the same portType. Also specify that BPEL message operations can receive faults that are not defined in the operation but cannot send faults (using BPEL message activities) that aren't defined in the operation. Also specify that the message type for faults sent via reply MUST use the same type as specified in the portType. Also specify that when throw is used with a fault whose name is specified in a WSDL that the type has to match. Rationale: This is really just filling out the requirement already in section 11.3 that faults be treated as using a consistent name/type across an entire portType. It also clarifies that WSDLs don't necessarily capture every single possible fault that could be received on an operation. Section 11.3 Add the following after "This is an important shortcoming of the WSDL fault model that will be removed in future versions of WSDL.": All faults with the same name used in the same portType included with a WS-BPEL process MUST use the same message type or the WS-BPEL process MUST be rejected, this requirement MUST be statically enforced. Section 13.4 Add the following after "A fault response to an invoke activity is one source of faults, with name and data aspects based on the definition of the fault in the WSDL operation (please refer to the Implementer’s Note in Section 11.3 for important details regarding access to fault information when faults are transmitted using SOAP).": Note, however, that faults MAY be received that were not defined in the WSDL operation. Section 11.4 Add the following after "We refer to the Implementer’s Note in Section 11.3 for additional details.": The fault referred to by the faultname attribute MUST be defined as a fault on the associated operation, the previous requirement MUST be statically enforced. Section 11.6 Add the following after "This provides a very lightweight mechanism to introduce application-specific faults.": Note, however, that if the fault name referred to in the faultName attribute matches a fault name defined in an associated WSDL portType then the type of the variable specified in the faultVariable attribute MUST match the messageType specified in the portType. The previous requirement MUST be statically enforced.