cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <>
Subject Re: Are faults errors?
Date Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:14:40 GMT
Hi Bruce,

+1 to Hiram's proposal.

I cannot speak about the original intentions, but since the idea of  
fault is only specific to just a few of the technologies camel  
supports, I think having a fault in an exchange could be quite  
confusing for other components.  I think it should be up to a  
component to decide what to do with the faults, camel-cxf in this case.

Some expressed the point of view that faults *are* exceptions.  I am  
not sure if that meant that they should be of an Exception type, or  
that they should be handled as exceptions by the middleware  
infrastructure.  I later thought they probably meant the former, which  
is fine.  The out in the exchange could hold an Exception which may or  
may not be handled by camel depending on how the route is defined.

My $0.02

On Apr 30, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Hiram Chirino  
> <> 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 -
> Apache Camel -
> Apache ServiceMix -
> Apache Geronimo -
> Blog:

View raw message