← Prev in month ← Prev in thread
Next in thread → Next in month →

Issue R18 - final resolution

From
Eiane Kordan
Date
2006-10-25T16:19:27+00:00
ID
Thread
Issue R18 - final resolution
As decided on the Oct. 25 TC call:  

In Section 10.3,  after the paragraph that says:

n the case of a request-response invocation, the operation
might return a WSDL fault message. This results in a fault identified in
WS-BPEL by a QName formed by the target namespace of the corresponding
port type and the fault name. To ensure consistent fault identification,
this uniform naming mechanism MUST be followed even though it does not
match the WSDL’s fault-naming model. WSDL 1.1 does not require fault names
to be unique within the namespace where the service operation is defined.
Therefore, in WSDL 1.1 it is necessary to specify a port type name, an
operation name, and the fault name to uniquely identify a fault. Using
WSDL 1.1's scheme would limit the ability to use fault-identification and
handling mechanisms to deal with invocation faults. 

Add:

In WSDL it is possible to define an
operation that declares more than one fault using the same data type.  Certain
WSDL bindings do not provide enough information for the WS-BPEL processor
to determine which fault was intended. In this case, the WS-BPEL processor
MUST select the fault that:

Matches the transmitted data and

Occurs first in lexical order in the
operation definition.  A
result of this requirement is that a process, which uses the <catch>
construct based on faultName and deals with such an operation definition,
may have different behavior when deployed against different bindings.  

 

In section 3, P. 11, in the li  

Change:

While WS-BPEL attempts to provide as much compatibility
with WSDL 1.1 as possible there are three areas where such compatibility
is not feasible. 

·       
Fault naming with its restriction, as discussed later
in this document (see section 12.5. Fault Handlers)

To:

While WS-BPEL attempts to provide as much compatibility
with WSDL 1.1 as possible there are three areas where such compatibility
is not feasible. 

·       
Fault naming with its restriction, as discussed later
in this document (see section 10.3 Invoking
Web Service Operations - Invoke)

 

Regards, Diane

IBM  Emerging Internet Software Standards



(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709
← Prev in month ← Prev in thread
Next in thread → Next in month →