[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp] modifyRegistrationRequired fault
The case I was attempting to make is that
the modify registration fault is an "extension" of a registration
fault that can be recovered from. I understand that one can view
InvalidRegistrationFault more as commandment to never again use the
registration handle rather than a signal that a registration is, say, temporarily
unavailable (cf InvalidHandle?). In this view both ModifyRegistration and
InvalidRegistrationFault could extend a base RegistationFault. Regards, Andre From: Rich Thompson
[mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Should
example usage of the new fault be better described? Should
the fault type be declared to extend the 1.0 InvalidRegistrationFault
(or a
common base type be inserted)? E.g.
<complexType name="ModifyRegistrationRequiredFault">
<complexContent>
<extension base="types:InvalidRegistrationFault">
<sequence/>
</extension>
</complexContent> </complexType> <element name="ModifyRegistrationRequired"
type="types:ModifyRegistrationRequiredFault"/>
Regards,
Andre
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]