Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [soapbuilders] Sun Endpoints Updated

Expand Messages
  • David Crowley
    A quick question. For SOAP 1.1, is the order in which elements appear in SOAP:Fault important? Is it true that the Sun toolkit wants the Fault elements to
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      A quick question. For SOAP 1.1, is the order in which elements appear in
      SOAP:Fault important? Is it true that the Sun toolkit wants the Fault
      elements to appear in the exact order faultcode, faultstring, faultactor,
      detail. The spec [1] doesn't indicate order is important. The SOAP 1.1
      schema specifies a sequence with elements in the above order but it also
      doesn't appear to allow any additional namespace qualified elements as
      specified in the spec ("Other Fault subelements MAY be present, provided
      they are namespace-qualified").

      Thanks,

      David




      [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383507
      [2] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/
    • Wes Moulder
      I believe it falls under a spec/schema discrepency. I d follow the spec since the schema seems incomplete in other regards. --Wes ... From: David Crowley
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Message
        I believe it falls under a spec/schema discrepency.  I'd follow the spec since the schema seems incomplete in other regards.
         
        --Wes
        -----Original Message-----
        From: David Crowley [mailto:dcrowley@...]
        Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 3:47 PM
        To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Sun Endpoints Updated


        A quick question.  For SOAP 1.1, is the order in which elements appear in
        SOAP:Fault important?  Is it true that the Sun toolkit wants the Fault
        elements to appear in the exact order faultcode, faultstring, faultactor,
        detail. The spec [1] doesn't indicate order is important.  The SOAP 1.1
        schema specifies a sequence with elements in the above order but it also
        doesn't appear to allow any additional namespace qualified elements as
        specified in the spec ("Other Fault subelements MAY be present, provided
        they are namespace-qualified").

        Thanks,

        David




        [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383507
        [2] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/



        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • Rich Salz
        Yes, the spec is vague and the schema wrong For maximum interop, I suggest keeping the order and putting any additional data under the detail element. /r$
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, the spec is vague and the schema "wrong"
          For maximum interop, I suggest keeping the order and putting any
          additional data under the detail element.
          /r$
        • David Crowley
          ... Great. That s what I wanted to hear. Thank you Rich and thank you Wes, David
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            At 05:45 PM 8/2/2002, Rich Salz wrote:
            >Yes, the spec is vague and the schema "wrong"
            >For maximum interop, I suggest keeping the order and putting any
            >additional data under the detail element.
            > /r$

            Great. That's what I wanted to hear.

            Thank you Rich and thank you Wes,

            David
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.