Re: [wsrf] Issue 100

[David Snelling <David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com>]

Sam,

On 16 May 2005, at 8:56, Samuel Meder wrote:

>
> I've changed the MUST to a SHOULD, but am wondering if the current 
> text isn't still to restrictive. Even with the change to a SHOULD it 
> seems to imply that all faults declared in WSDL MUST be a Base Fault. 
> Can I assume that the spirit of the resolution was to allow the 
> declaration of non-BaseFaults faults in WSDL?

This was my understanding. People might want to mix in an existing 
service (faults and all) with the WSRF stuff. They SHOULD be encouraged 
to convert the existing faults to BaseFaults to gain the benefits. MUST 
would be too restrictive.

-- 

Take care:

     Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com >
     Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe
     Hayes Park Central
     Hayes End Road
     Hayes, Middlesex  UB4 8FE

     +44-208-606-4649 (Office)
     +44-208-606-4539 (Fax)
     +44-7768-807526  (Mobile)