Re: [wsrf] Re: Issue wsrf100 - Confusion about requirement of usingWS-BaseFaults

[Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>]

Sam, yes that is correct. Our statement about WS-I BP is that the WSDL 1.1
produced by this TC is compliant. All SOAP examples are non-normative but,
to be consistent with the WS-I statement, it made sense to change the SOAP
1.2 examples to SOAP 1.1. In the case of WSRF-BF, we agreed to have a
non-normative section that illustrated the SOAP bindings for WSRF-BF and
that clearly needs to include SOAP 1.1. There is no reason to not also show
non-normative SOAP 1.2 bindings as well in WSRF-BF.

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 16:49          <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>         
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [wsrf] Re: Issue wsrf100 -      
                                       Confusion about requirement of      
                                       using WS-BaseFaults                 
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





Just to clarify, the AI from the May second call is to add examples
of both SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 fault messages (even though 1.2 is not WS-I
BP compliant?)

/Sam

On Mar 18, 2005, at 6:33 AM, Tim Banks wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Some problems arose during the recent interop tests because of the
> rules
> describing the construction of faults, and the experience needs to be
> factored into the discussion of issue 100.
>
>
>>>> Background:
>>>>
>
> WSDL. 1.1 section 3.6 says
>
>    "The soap:fault element specifies the contents of the contents
> of the
>    SOAP Fault Details element."       (Yes, that looks a bit
> strange - it's
>    a copy/paste of the spec)
>     and  "The name attribute relates the soap:fault to the
> wsdl:fault.."
> and "The fault message MUST have a single part."
>
> However, the soap schema allows multiple children of <detail> and
> the WS-I
> basic profile confirms this is possible with:
>
> R1002 A RECEIVER MUST accept fault messages that have any number of
> elements, including zero, appearing as children of the detail
> element. Such
> children can be qualified or unqualified.
>
> Also, note the additional WS-I rule:
>
> R2742 A MESSAGE MAY contain a fault detail entry in a SOAP fault
> that is
> not described by a wsdl:fault element in the corresponding WSDL
> description.
>
> and the current state of BaseFault and WS-Resource specs (see issue
> wsrf100) wrt whether Basefaults are required or merely recommended.
>
> The questions for WSRF implementers are
>  - Is there a basefault present at all?
>  - Which child of the <detail> element contains it?
>
>
>>>> Example:
>>>>
>
>  <soapenv:Body>
>   <soapenv:Fault>
>     <faultcode
> xmlns:ns1="A.Resources.com">ns1:ResourceManagerFault</faultcode>
>     <faultstring/>
>     <detail encodingStyle="">
>        <ns1:ResourceManagerFault
> xmlns:ns1="A.Resources.com"><ns1:ImportantInformationElement/
> ><ns1:ResourceManagerFault>
>        <wsrf-rp:InvalidInsertResourcePropertiesRequestContentFault>
>         <wsrf-bf:Timestamp>2005-03-11T17:13:51Z</wsrf-bf:Timestamp>
>         <wsrf-bf:Description>The property xxx may not be
> inserted!.</wsrf-bf:Description>
>       </wsrf-rp:InvalidInsertResourcePropertiesRequestContentFault>
>     </detail>
>   </soapenv:Fault>
> </soapenv:Body>
>
> Is this fault intended to contain a basefault, or is it the
> <wsrf-rp:InvalidInsertResourcePropertiesRequestContentFault> which
> is the
> extraneous detail?
>
>
>>>> Recommendations:
>>>>
>
> a) Faults MUST contain exactly one wsrf-bf:BaseFault.
> Otherwise, there is no algorithm for identifying conformant faults
> from
> rogue ones.
>
> b) the Basefaults spec should contain an example of a fault message.
>
>
> Regards, Tim Banks
> IBM TP Architecture & Technology. Hursley, UK.
> Phone: External +44 1962 815639, Internal 245639
>
>
>