[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrf] Issue 100
I believe the spirit of the resolution, as you say, was to allow applications to use non-BaseFaults. Regards, Ian Robinson STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect IBM Hursley Lab, UK ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com Samuel Meder <meder@mcs.anl.go v> To wsrf-oasis 16/05/2005 16:56 <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org> cc Subject [wsrf] Issue 100 I've changed the MUST to a SHOULD, but am wondering if the current text isn't still to restrictive. Even with the change to a SHOULD it seems to imply that all faults declared in WSDL MUST be a Base Fault. Can I assume that the spirit of the resolution was to allow the declaration of non-BaseFaults faults in WSDL? /Sam
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]