RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for the Resolution of 170---Comments invited

Sure.  We could do that.  Kevin is also looking into whether the
"headerfault" is relevant here and we need to say something there as
well.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:10 PM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: Kartha, Neelakantan; 
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for the Resolution of
170---Comments invited

Shouldn't the language make it clearer that this limitation is a 
function of the standard WSDL 1.1 SOAP binding but that alternative SOAP

bindings could choose to behave differently?

Satish Thatte wrote:
> A few editorial fixes:
> 
> BPEL does not support getting or setting the faultcode, faultstring or

> faultactor elements in a SOAP 1.1 standard fault when sending,
receiving, 
> throwing or catching a fault. Recall that faultcode, faultstring and
fautlactor 
> are  sub elements of the Fault element as defined by the SOAP 1.1 
> specification.  The definition of  a SOAP fault binding  according to
the WSDL 
> 1.1 specification only provides for binding of the detail element (a
sub element 
> of  the SOAP Fault element) and not the SOAP Fault element itself.
Because the 
> BPEL message variables are defined based on WSDL message (type)
definitions, a 
> BPEL message variable representing a SOAP 1.1 standard fault can only
contain a 
> detail element, not faultcode, faultstring or faultactor.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> 
> *From:* Kartha, Neelakantan [mailto:]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:29 AM
> *To:* 
> *Subject:* [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for the Resolution of
170---Comments 
> invited
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Implementors Note:
> 
> BPEL does not support any way of getting or setting faultcode,
faultstring or 
> faultactor in sending, receiving, throwing or catching a fault. The
following 
> provides the rationale: Recall that faultcode, faultstring and
fautlactor are  
> sub elements iof the Fault element as defined by the SOAP 1.1
standard.  The 
> definition of  a SOAP fault binding  according to WSDL 1.1
specification only 
> provides for binding to the detail element (a sub element of  the SOAP
Fault 
> element) and not to the SOAP Fault element itself. Because a BPEL
message 
> variable is defined via WSDL definitions, it can only contain the
content of a 
> detail element, not faultcode, faultstring or faultactor.
> 
> I was planning to include it in section 13.4 (right above the start of
section 
> 13.4.1).
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Kartha
> 
> 
> 469-524-2639
>