[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       axis-dev
Subject:    Re: Proposed Modification: AxisFault
From:       "Doug Davis" <dug () us ! ibm ! com>
Date:       2001-02-26 11:57:16
[Download RAW message or body]

+1
-Dug

"James Snell" <jsnell@lemoorenet.com> on 02/24/2001 03:22:07 PM

Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org

To:   <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
cc:
Subject:  Re: Proposed Modification: AxisFault



So... putting this to a vote, are we +1 or -1 on making the Fault Code in
the AxisFault class a QName??

I'm +1 on it.

- James

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
To: <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed Modification: AxisFault


> Yup. U got it .. as I said, it works, but not by design. :-)
>
> If u read it as a QName, life's good and it comes out just fine.
> Sometimes life is really good.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Snell" <jsnell@lemoorenet.com>
> To: <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 1:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposed Modification: AxisFault
>
>
> > Well... kinda... ;-) ...  It (Apache SOAP) uses strings that look like
> > QNames but.... ;-)   Chewing gum and bailing wire?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> > To: <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 9:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: Proposed Modification: AxisFault
> >
> >
> > > So does Apache SOAP .. at least for the built in ones, just by the
> > > way it was written (not by design :-)). We certainly should be
> > > doing QNames.
> > >
> > > Sanjiva.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "James Snell" <jsnell@lemoorenet.com>
> > > To: <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 12:33 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Proposed Modification: AxisFault
> > >
> > >
> > > > Really?  Wow... missed that one!  Sorry about that! :-)  Good job!
he
> > he..
> > > > yeah.
> > > >
> > > > - James
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>
> > > > To: <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 8:01 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Proposed Modification: AxisFault
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > actually, 4s4c reports SOAP faults with QNames,
> > > >
> > > > <?xml version="1.0"?>
> > > > <SOAP-ENV:Envelope
> > > > xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
> > > > xmlns:SOAP-ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"
> > > > xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"
> > > > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance"
> > > > SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/">
> > > > <SOAP-ENV:Body>
> > > > <SOAP-ENV:Fault>
> > > > <faultcode>SOAP-ENV:Client</faultcode>
> > > > <faultstring>Unable to locate method
> > > > 'someunknownmethodname'</faultstring>
> > > > </SOAP-ENV:Fault></SOAP-ENV:Body></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Simon
> > > > www.pocketsoap.com
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:44:19 -0800, in soap you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Well, the fact that absolutely no SOAP implementations todate
(that
I
> > know
> > > > >of anyway) supports the notion of SOAP Faults being QNames doesn't
help
> > > > >matters much either.  They've always been treated as ordinary
strings.
> > > > >
> > > > >- James
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "MURRAY,BRYAN (HP-FtCollins,ex1)" <bryan_murray@hp.com>
> > > > >To: <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
> > > > >Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 6:43 PM
> > > > >Subject: RE: Proposed Modification: AxisFault
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> That clears it up for me - thanks. The section of the spec
quoted
by
> > > > James
> > > > >> did not mention being a qualified name and I have not seen any
> > examples
> > > > >> using a qualified name.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This seems like an oversight in the spec to me - it seems like
> > examples
> > > > >> would be more useful if they did not use the default namespace
so
it
> > is
> > > > >more
> > > > >> apparent when a namespace is expected versus not present.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Bryan
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
> > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 1:40 PM
> > > > >> To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > > >> Subject: RE: Proposed Modification: AxisFault
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Section 4 of the SOAP spec says:
> > > > >> "faultcode
> > > > >> The faultcode element is intended for use by software to provide
an
> > > > >> algorithmic mechanism for
> > > > >> identifying the fault. The faultcode MUST be present in a SOAP
Fault
> > > > >> element and the faultcode
> > > > >> value MUST be a qualified name as defined in [8], section 3.
SOAP
> > defines
> > > > >a
> > > > >> small set of SOAP
> > > > >> fault codes covering basic SOAP faults (see section 4.4.1)"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So the faultcode must be a qname.  This seems obvious from the
spec,
> > am I
> > > > >> missing something?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ++++++++
> > > > >> Steve Graham
> > > > >> sggraham@us.ibm.com
> > > > >> (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> > > > >> Web Services Architect
> > > > >> Emerging Internet Technologies
> > > > >> ++++++++
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]