9310Re: Round 4 - Illegal Fault Soap Messages for Encoded case
- Jul 1, 2003Hi,
Oh, sorry, I missed the point. You are addressing one of the more confusing
cases in WSDL 1.1 sec. 3.5 and the subject of some debate in the past, which
I recall only as being inconclusive.
It reads, referring to the case use="literal" with <part> referencing a
"In the second, the type referenced by the part becomes the schema type of
the enclosing element (Body for document style or part accessor element for
This may make sense if the type referenced is an complex type, but doesn't
if the type is a simple type, because the SOAP "Body" and "detail" complex
types can only have element content as immediate children , or at least
that is my understanding of the situation. In SOAP 1.1 sec. 4.3 the same
language is used as in the case of the detail element, stating that body
entries are encoded as independent elements.
So I've always thought that you simply can't do this, even though the WSDL
mechanisms allow it, since the result conflicts with the SOAP 1.1 rules. The
WSDL reader here doesn't handle this second case at all, it accepts type
references in <part> only if use is encoded, avoiding the issue entirely.
So I'm of no help on this point. Maybe someone else has insights into this
or can better recall the outcome of discussions in the past.
> Hi Bob,
> I understand how faults will work when the message part is
> referring to an element and the use is literal.
> I was more interested to see how soap fault messages will look like
> when wsdl message part refers to an abstract type and the use is
> I mean,
> <message name="StringFault">
> <part name="part2" type="xsd:string" />
> Use is Literal.
> Appreciate your help,
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>