A few months back, I wrote up a proposal for "decoupling the fault databinding from the way that the exception maps to a fault" which would among other things "get the exception handlers out of the introspection business."
The mail is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg24973.html and I attached a patch to: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1206 Can we re-open this discussion? I know I may have missed some of the discussion in the meantime; I apologize and if so maybe someone wouldn't mind pointing me to that. Anyway at the time Raymond said it sounded like a good idea, but I don't think anything came of it. I know there's been some related work, e.g. Simon Nash's work on TUSCANY-1939, but to me it seems the issues I encountered still exist. This isn't just a question of elegance. One problem with using the ExceptionHandler.getFaultType() as an introspector can be seen by considering: public class MyExcMsg extends Exception { private int fault; public static QName FAULT_ELEMENT = new QName("http://blah","MyFault";); // The rest follows the JAX-WS Sec 2.5 pattern, So with the current code, the SDOExceptionHandler will say, "yes, I recognize this" and we'll set up SDO as the DB for the fault. But the DB should be "simple". And the bigger point I'm making is: the question of SDO, JAXB, or simple should be a question of what the fault looks like, not the pattern by which the exception maps to a fault. Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
