[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrf] Re: Issue wsrf100 - Confusion about requirement of using WS-BaseFaults
Just to clarify, the AI from the May second call is to add examples of both SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 fault messages (even though 1.2 is not WS-I BP compliant?) /Sam On Mar 18, 2005, at 6:33 AM, Tim Banks wrote: > > > > > Some problems arose during the recent interop tests because of the > rules > describing the construction of faults, and the experience needs to be > factored into the discussion of issue 100. > > >>>> Background: >>>> > > WSDL. 1.1 section 3.6 says > > "The soap:fault element specifies the contents of the contents > of the > SOAP Fault Details element." (Yes, that looks a bit > strange - it's > a copy/paste of the spec) > and "The name attribute relates the soap:fault to the > wsdl:fault.." > and "The fault message MUST have a single part." > > However, the soap schema allows multiple children of <detail> and > the WS-I > basic profile confirms this is possible with: > > R1002 A RECEIVER MUST accept fault messages that have any number of > elements, including zero, appearing as children of the detail > element. Such > children can be qualified or unqualified. > > Also, note the additional WS-I rule: > > R2742 A MESSAGE MAY contain a fault detail entry in a SOAP fault > that is > not described by a wsdl:fault element in the corresponding WSDL > description. > > and the current state of BaseFault and WS-Resource specs (see issue > wsrf100) wrt whether Basefaults are required or merely recommended. > > The questions for WSRF implementers are > - Is there a basefault present at all? > - Which child of the <detail> element contains it? > > >>>> Example: >>>> > > <soapenv:Body> > <soapenv:Fault> > <faultcode > xmlns:ns1="A.Resources.com">ns1:ResourceManagerFault</faultcode> > <faultstring/> > <detail encodingStyle=""> > <ns1:ResourceManagerFault > xmlns:ns1="A.Resources.com"><ns1:ImportantInformationElement/ > ><ns1:ResourceManagerFault> > <wsrf-rp:InvalidInsertResourcePropertiesRequestContentFault> > <wsrf-bf:Timestamp>2005-03-11T17:13:51Z</wsrf-bf:Timestamp> > <wsrf-bf:Description>The property xxx may not be > inserted!.</wsrf-bf:Description> > </wsrf-rp:InvalidInsertResourcePropertiesRequestContentFault> > </detail> > </soapenv:Fault> > </soapenv:Body> > > Is this fault intended to contain a basefault, or is it the > <wsrf-rp:InvalidInsertResourcePropertiesRequestContentFault> which > is the > extraneous detail? > > >>>> Recommendations: >>>> > > a) Faults MUST contain exactly one wsrf-bf:BaseFault. > Otherwise, there is no algorithm for identifying conformant faults > from > rogue ones. > > b) the Basefaults spec should contain an example of a fault message. > > > Regards, Tim Banks > IBM TP Architecture & Technology. Hursley, UK. > Phone: External +44 1962 815639, Internal 245639 > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]