Yes. That's correct.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:19:23 +0100, Tysnes Are Thobias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for the information Anne :o) > > "Alternatively, it is acceptable to define custom fault codes in a > namespace controlled by the specifying authority" > > Means this is an acceptable custom faultcode !? > > <faultcode > xmlns:ns1="http://www.mycompany.com/webservices/ns/";>ns1:CustomFaultcode > </faultcode> > > Cheers, > Are T. Tysnes > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 15. mars 2005 15:13 > To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: faultcodes in SoapFaults thrown from Axis > > I've raised this issue on more than one occasion. The use of the "dot" > notation in fault error codes is discouraged by the WS-I BP: > > <wsiExcerpt> > 3.3.6 SOAP Custom Fault Codes > > SOAP 1.1 allows custom fault codes to appear inside the faultcode > element, through the use of the "dot" notation. > > Use of this mechanism to extend the meaning of the SOAP 1.1-defined > fault codes can lead to namespace collision. Therefore, its use should > be avoided, as doing so may cause interoperability issues when the same > names are used in the right-hand side of the "." (dot) to convey > different meaning. > > Instead, the Profile encourages the use of the fault codes defined in > SOAP 1.1, along with additional information in the detail element to > convey the nature of the fault. > > Alternatively, it is acceptable to define custom fault codes in a > namespace controlled by the specifying authority. > > A number of specifications have already defined custom fault codes using > the "." (dot) notation. Despite this, their use in future specifications > is discouraged. > > R1004 When an ENVELOPE contains a faultcode element, the content of that > element SHOULD be either one of the fault codes defined in SOAP 1.1 > (supplying additional information if necessary in the detail element), > or a Qname whose namespace is controlled by the fault's specifying > authority (in that order of preference). > > R1031 When an ENVELOPE contains a faultcode element the content of that > element SHOULD NOT use of the SOAP 1.1 "dot" notation to refine the > meaning of the fault. > > It is recommended that applications that require custom fault codes > either use the SOAP1.1 defined fault codes and supply additional > information in the detail element, or that they define these codes in a > namespace that is controlled by the specifying authority. </wsiExcerpt> > > Also note that the whole concept of Server.userException makes > absolutely no sense. If the fault is caused by a user exception, then > the proper fault code is Client, not Server. > > Per the SOAP 1.1 specification: > > <soapSpecExcerpt> > Client > > The Client class of errors indicate that the message was incorrectly > formed or did not contain the appropriate information in order to > succeed. For example, the message could lack the proper authentication > or payment information. It is generally an indication that the message > should not be resent without change. See also section 4.4 for a > description of the SOAP Fault detail sub-element. > > Server > > The Server class of errors indicate that the message could not be > processed for reasons not directly attributable to the contents of the > message itself but rather to the processing of the message. For example, > processing could include communicating with an upstream processor, which > didn't respond. The message may succeed at a later point in time. See > also section 4.4 for a description of the SOAP Fault detail sub-element. > </soapSpecExcerpt> > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:06:36 +0100, Tysnes Are Thobias > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hello! > > > > It looks to me that Axis throws SoapFaults with the following > > faultcodes: > > > > - Client > > - Server.generalException > > - Server.userException > > - VersionMismatch > > - MustUnserstand > > - Server.NoService > > > > Wonder if someone could confirm this :o) > > > > Cheers, > > Are T. Tysnes > > >
