cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hiram Chirino" <>
Subject Re: Are faults errors?
Date Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:56:10 GMT
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.


On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:
> Hi,
>  We had an issue in camel (see end of nabble thread here:
> and we'd highly appreciate your input on this.
>  In brief, there is a proposal to get rid of faults.  Most of the protocols
> do not distinguish between faults and exceptions, but jbi, jsr181, wsdl to.
> Should we remove faults from the model?  And if we do so should faults be
> more like outputs or more like errors?
>  Thanks
>  Hadrian



Open Source SOA

View raw message