RE: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults

Mark pointed out to me that we have a 'template' for raising issues. So
here's the issue using that template which will hopefully be more
complete and easier for people to get their heads around;

Title: 'default default' action URI for fault messages.

Description: The resolution for Issue 35[1] removed the fixed default
action URI for fault messages and replaced it with a algorithm similar
to that for non-fault messages. However, I believe we need a fixed URI
for people to use when returning a fault that is NOT described in WSDL.
If a fault isn't described in WSDL, then people used to be able to use
the fixed URI. That option is no longer available to them. 

Justification: If we don't add a 'default default' then faults not
described in WSDL will have to define a specific action, whereas they
might wish to utilize a default fixed value. And they may have nowhere
to define that specific action because the fault is NOT described in
WSDL; they can't use explicit association (wsa:Action) because there is
no where to hang the attribute.

Target: wsdl

Proposal:  Add text along the following lines to section 3

	3.4 Default Action URI for faults NOT listed in WSDL

	In some systems not all faults can or will be listed in a WSDL
description. 
	Such faults still need an action URI. Faults not listed in a
WSDL 
	description MAY use the following 
	action URI; http://www.w3.org/ws/2005/02/addressing/fault


cheers

Gudge

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i035

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Martin Gudgin
> Sent: 01 February 2005 09:27
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Cc: Jonathan Marsh
> Subject: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults
> 
> 
> We've got rid of the fixed default action URI for fault messages and
> replaced it with a algorithm similar to that for non-fault messages.
> However, I believe we need a fixed URI for people to use when 
> returning
> a fault that is NOT described in WSDL. If my fault isn't described in
> WSDL, I used to be able to use the fixed URI and now I can't because
> it's gone. 
> 
> Please can we put the fixed URI (or one like it) back, indicating that
> it is intended ONLY for use with faults NOT listed in the WSDL.
> 
> Note, I am NOT trying to re-open issue 35[1], I just think we missed a
> case, that's all.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Gudge
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i035
> 
>

Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 16:36:49 UTC