Re: CR109: Two options
Jean-Jacques Moreau <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.description |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
DONE. JJ. Jonathan Marsh wrote: > +1 to a. Who knows when SOAP 1.3 comes along, adding another QName to the > fault code list, and thus impossible to bind using the soap versioning > capabilities in our binding? > > Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau >> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:58 AM >> To: WSD Public >> Subject: CR109: Two options >> >> >> In fulfillment of my editorial item, I have come accross the following >> issue. >> >> There are 2 ways implement the resolution for CR issue 109: >> a. restrict the {soap fault code} property to the 5 allowed QNames, when >> the underlying protocol is SOAP 1.2; or >> >> b. restrict instead the <wsoap:code> EII. >> >> (c. = a.+b. seems an overkill) >> >> Pros: >> a. Easier to implement (spec-wise). >> >> b. Disallows invalid XML in the first place. >> >> Cons: >> a. The XML may be valid whilst the component model isn't. (Does this >> matter?) >> >> b. Difficult to represent in the pseudo-code and in the schema. >> >> Which option does the WG want the editors to implement? I suggest a. for >> ease of implementation. >> >> JJ. >> > > >