On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Aki Yoshida <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > There is a mail thread on users@cxf regarding the soap faultstring > generation rule. > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-users/201212.mbox/%3CCANXr88J3iiWU_d_xrBDv0x5msKH9FiWVP-DcQA9fOWC_3p%3DFvQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > Could someone familiar with section 10.2.2 of the jaxws spec comment > on this, in particular, what is exactly meant as the exception from > service endpoints. > > This section differentiates these service endpoints exceptions from > those runtime exceptions raised by jaxws handlers. I am not sure if > some of the cxf interceptors are to be interpreted as jaxws handlers > (strictly speaking of the terminology, not, but logically some of them > are playing the same role, hence my question). As I commented in the > above mail thread, we need to apply this faultstring generation at the > appropriate place depending on the interpretation of this section.
Honestly, this is an area where I think either interpretation would be arguable if an issue came up. There are basically 3 places for the exception: 1) Service Endpoint 2) JAX-WS Handler 3) CXF interceptor For (1) and (2), I think it might be best to just write a small sample and see what the RI does and go with that. If we behave the same as the RI, there really wouldn't be much argument. That would leave (3). I don't really have a preference one way or another on this. I guess whatever the the RI does for (2) would be appropriate, but I'm not really feeling strongly one way or the other. Ideally, none of *OUR* interceptors would be throwing an NPE as we'd have proper guards in place and we'd be throwing proper exceptions, but that's certainly a pie-in-the-sky goal. -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
