> >As a consumer of web services that has had to deal with >arbitrary return values instead of SOAPFaults, I would have to >side with Barney on this issue. Handling a SOAPFault in a >standard try/catch or other error handling mechanism is _much_ >easier to interpret than having to go though some odd return >code lookup routine. Why would I want 10 different mechanisms >for handling bad returns when a standard for dealing with >errors already exists? >
I'm in agreement with this. Specifically, it's the faultstring and detail elements that I'd like to be able to customize. Spike -------------------------------------------- Stephen Milligan Code poet for hire http://www.spike.org.uk Do you cfeclipse? http://cfeclipse.tigris.org ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
