[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] proposed wording for bullet in 4.5
I'm cataching up with email, so I apologize upfront if this issue is already discussed and/or resolved already. Doug Bunting wrote: > > We have not previously discussed the second or third sentences of this > draft. The above changes remove some duplicate text from the second > sentence, moves some into the first sentence and rewords the > remainder. If the group prefers less editorial changes and limiting > the updates to the first sentence, I would suggest at least removing > an extraneous "then" from the second. The new first sentence for this > alternative would be: > > " > When the Response RM-Reply Pattern is in use and the message cannot > be delivered to the Consumer, a > SOAP Fault MUST be generated in addition to the RM Fault. > " > Is the above comment specific to Duplicate Elimination case or a generic failure (to deliver) case? If former, then there is NO RM fault for Duplicate messages. So the above should be better qualified as "in addition to the RM Fault if exists one". If it is the latter, why do we need to send *both* RM fault and SOAP Fault. The Sending RMP will convert/translate a RM Fault either as a SOAP Exception or a API specific exception. So we don't need both. If we have to say SOAP Fault is sent, don't we need better sub-codes for interoperability? -Sunil
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]