Yes -- but WS-I BP explicitly states that using the standard SOAP fault codes is preferred.
-----Original Message----- From: Simon Fell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 12:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: .NET interorperability issue? That's never been my intereptation of the spec, if I can give a more exact faultcode in a location at that is readily accessable by all tools, then I think that's the right way to go. The problem with putting stuff in detail is there's no standard, in a lot of tools you're left with a dom frament you have to pick appart yourself, hardly easy to use. I stand by my previous assertions. > -----Original Message----- > From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: .NET interorperability issue? > > Note that it is PREFERRED that you use the standard SOAP fault codes: > > Client = There was something wrong with your request. Fix it > before you resubmit (see detail for more info). > > Server = There was a problem processing your request (see > detail for more info). Please resubmit your request again. > > VersionMismatch = I don't know how to process that version of > the SOAP envelope. > > MustUnderstand = I didn't understand a required header block. > > It was *intended* that you return the detailed fault > information in the > detail: > > <soapenv:Fault> > <faultcode>soapenv:Client</faultcode> > <faultstring>There was something wrong with your > request</faultstring> > <detail xmlns:sf="http://www.simon.fell.com/faults";> > <sf:errorCode>InvalidStartDate<sf:errorCode> > </detail> > </soapenv:Fault> > > - Anne > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nelson Minar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 4:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: .NET interorperability issue? > > >I'd highly recommend that you use soap faults as they were > intedended > >and return your own faultcode qnames, rather than returning > a generic > >faultcode qname and burying the real fault info in the detail, e.g. > ><soapenv:Fault xmlns:sf="http://www.simon.fell.com/faults";> > > <faultcode>sf:InvalidStartDate</faultcode> ... > > I wasn't sure so I looked it up; this is WS-I compliant as > long as you use your own namespace for the contents of the > faultcode element. See > R1004 and R1031. > > <http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html > #SOAP_Custom_F > ault_Codes> > >
