xml-soap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Noel Gadreau <jngadr...@activcard.com>
Subject RE: SOAPException changes to allow details
Date Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:59:01 GMT
I agree with you that I would rather have Elements in the details of a fault
rather than just a String. This way, it is possible to have "detailled"
faults with complex details (several values). 
 
I am not sure I understand your point about the stacktrace if it is not a
SOAPException. Maybe it would be nice to be able to put a Fault in a
SOAPException directly. This way, when you create the exception, you can set
exactly what you want the client to get. If there is a Fault set, then
that's what you send, otherwise, you just send the faultcode/faultstring as
it is done now.
 
What do you think ?
 
Jean-Noel
=============
Jean-Noel GADREAU
Software Engineer, ActivCard Inc.( http://www.activcard.com
<http://www.activcard.com/>  )
E-mail: jngadreau@activcard.com
Tel (main): 510-574-0100
Tel (direct): 510-574-1736

-----Original Message-----
From: Simpson, Jeff [mailto:jsimpson@EZPRICING.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 8:15 AM
To: 'soap-dev@xml.apache.org'
Subject: RE: SOAPException changes to allow details


Since I never got a response to this I plan on doing the following.
Continue with using a Vector of Elements.  Make the change to the Serverlet.
Add code to extract the stacktrace of the target exception if it is not a
SOAPException.  
 
I would appreciate someone telling me if this not the right approach.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Simpson, Jeff 
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 11:11 AM
To: 'soap-dev@xml.apache.org'
Subject: RE: SOAPException changes to allow details
 
A string my make it a bit harder on the callers side.  What is nice with the
vector of elements is that you don't need to parse the output.  It is
already done for you.  We could put the stack trace into an element with out
much problem.
 
I guess the code I put into the rpcrouter.jsp needs to be put into the
serverlet.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 10:54 PM
To: soap-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: SOAPException changes to allow details
 
This is a needed fix, however, I'd like to visit the reason behind
org.apache.soap.Fault having a vector of elements for the body 
of the detail element. That seems overkill .. that should be just
a simple string IMO. Matt ??
 
If we change that to a string, then the exception can also be
a string and that way we can easily have a default where if there's
no detail set in the exception, the exception -> fault conversion 
drops in a stacktrace into the detail element.
 
What do you think?

Sanjiva.
 
----- Original Message ----- 


From: Simpson,  <mailto:jsimpson@EZPRICING.com> Jeff 

 
To: Soap-Dev@Xml. Apache. Org (E-mail)
<mailto:Soap-Dev@Xml.%20Apache.%20Org%20(E-mail)>  
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 6:24 PM
Subject: SOAPException changes to allow details
 
Here are some changes that I made that allow the Server Class to throw a
SOAPException and return back a SOAP Fault detail.  It has the happy side
effect of allowing you to also send back your own fault codes.  
I added a vector, details, to SOAPException, and made getters and setter for
it. 
I made some changes to rpcrouter.jsp.  Here where the SOAPException is
caught I test the targetException to see if it was a SOAPException and if it
was I set the fault Details to the exceptions details.  I think this clears
up a few bugs.
If you decide to use this use the details you should be careful that the
Vector must be filled only with Elements. 
 
Jeffrey V. Simpson 
Senior Software Engineer 
http://www.ezpricing.com/ <http://www.ezpricing.com/>  
Tel:    (202)  833-4949 x116 
Cell:   (202) 253-1302 
Fax:    (202) 833-3819 

Mime
View raw message