cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bruce Snyder" <bruce.sny...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Are faults errors?
Date Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:28:55 GMT
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> When I think faults I always think soap faults.  And I think that was
>  the main use case behind adding the the fault message in the exchange.
>   But the fact is that a fault is just the out message from soap.  A
>  soap processor could inspect that out message and notice it's of a
>  fault variety.  So my vote is to eliminate the fault message and store
>  faults in the out message.
>
>  IMO, exceptions thrown by camel processors should be due to internal
>  camel errors due to things like not having connectivity or invalid
>  configuration etc. etc. Accessing a soap service which returns a fault
>  message should not be an exception, it's just a error response that
>  needs to get routed.

This discussion immediately makes me think of the fault propagation
rules in WSDL 2.0 which are used to specify the recipient of the fault
message. There are three rules in WSDL 2.0:

1) Fault replaces message - fault might not be sent to the message originator
2) Message triggers fault - fault must be sent to the message originator
3) No faults - faults are discarded

Was there any intention when originally putting faults into Camel to
cover these rules at all? Or is this not a concern at all?

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/

Blog: http://bruceblog.org/

Mime
View raw message