Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Re: Issue 304 - discussion - clarification on whetherthe QName of a fault needs to be unique across all portTypes and operations
I still do not ge the relation of that to what we are discussing. The uniqueness of faultName QName comes from BPEL. E.g. see section 12.5:
"Data thrown with a fault can be a WSDL message type or a XML Schema element. Each <catch>, which specifies a QName as its faultName attribute value, can only catch a fault matching that particular QName. This one-to-one relationship is necessary in order to guarantee proper targeting for fault catching. "
If the faultName QName defined in WS-BPEL does not have a 1-1 match with a fault in WSDL 1.1 (as the fault names are not unique per the WSDL component model and fault name is defined to be an NCName not a QName), then it is in violation of the WS-BPEL spec as written now. Only way that can happen is if we constrain WSDL fault naming, which has the draw backs already mentioned.
If we do not want WS-BPEL fault QNames to be unique, lets us state that and clear-up the confusion, that way we will not violate WSDL 1.1 model. That is what I was suggesting by saying the alternative is not to require the WS-BPEL faultNames to be unique QNames.
My preference however is to stream-line this so that same fault names (for the same faults) are usable with multiple interfaces and operations, as that is highly desirable.
Assaf Arkin wrote:
On 7/24/06, Prasad Yendluri <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: