OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsrm] Proposal to resolve PR26 - Soap Fault with rm-fault


Tom,

I have a slight (very slight) preference toward a SOAP fault in the case 
that an RM fault leads to an unexpectedly empty SOAP Body.  However, this 
text should be focused specifically on that case since the producer may not 
be expecting any consumer payloads.  SOAP Body content (a SOAP fault) would 
be entirely redundant and itself unexpected unless a consumer payload was 
expected.

To avoid such an over-generalized statement, I would suggest adding "and a 
consumer payload was expected" before the comma in both sentences you propose.

An editorial nit: Should these two sentences be talking about "soap:client" 
and "soap:server" or "SOAP client" and "SOAP server" faults?  Consistency 
seems necessary here.

thanx,
	doug

[1] ... whom, I assume, is the target of the SOAP fault.  This is a bit 
counter-intuitive since the sending RMP hides the SOAP messaging layer from 
the producer to some extent.


On 02-Jul-04 11:27, Tom Rutt wrote:

> Proposal to Resolve Issue PR26 – Soap Fault with RM-Fault
> 
> The behaviour that an RM-Fault is returned with a soap fault in the case 
> that a response
> payload is not available for response reply pattern was part of the 
> public review draft
> cd .992. The changes suggested by Sunil would constitute a substantive 
> change to the public review draft.
> 
> This behaviour works, and provides fault information separately tarteted 
> for the rmp and
> the producer.
> 
> However the following sentences were inadvertently removed during 
> editing after
> CD .992
> “
> If the RM-Fault encountered was due to a problem with the request header 
> element, a SOAP
> client fault MUST be returned. If the RM Fault encountered was due to a 
> problem with processing
> by the receiving RMP (including the inability to return a response due 
> to Duplicate Elimination), a
> soap:server fault must be returned.
> “
> 
> We agreed to have section 4.5 only talk about rm faults, so the 
> parenthetical statement should be removed.
> 
> Proposed Resolution:
> 
> Add the following paragraph in Line 1070 of 1.04JacquesContrib, after 
> the first sentence of the bullet:
> “
> If the RM-Fault encountered was due to a problem with the request header 
> element, a SOAP
> client fault MUST be returned. If the RM Fault encountered was due to a 
> problem with processing
> by the receiving RMP, a soap:server fault must be returned.
> “
> 
> 
> Tom Rutt
> 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]