Title: Message
From: Liu,
Kevin [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:32
AM
To: Satish Thatte; Kartha,
Neelakantan; bpel spec
Subject:
RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for issue 170 (RESEND)
Hi
Satish,
After thought a
little bit more on this, I realize I was wrong about
headerfault.
The wsdl1.1 soap
binding is very vague on how headerfault should be defined/used, but
reasonable guess would be put the whole soap:fault structure under
soap:header. If that's the case, even one can define a message that contains
elements such as "faultcode", "faultstring" etc, these elements are not in the
soap namespace.
[Satish Thatte] ?? The SOAP fault elements are
indeed in the standard SOAP envelop namespace. But of course one can
define a message part with the whole SOAP-ENV:Fault GED as the element
specification.
[<kl>] you are right if headerfault works
differently than bodyfault. However, in case that it follows the body fault
pattern and only allow a wsdl fault message to be mapped to soap:fault detail
element (which I believe is a reasonable guess and that's why I changed my
original assessment), then this is a problem.
