> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20 October 2006 18:06 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: stacktrace in fault? > > James Mao wrote: > > > I'm thinking of adding a getStackTrace()/setStackTrace into Fault I > > saw in XML binding we just set the stacktrace into the message, i > > don't think that is correct way. > > Any idea? > > > > -james. > > > > > I don't think we should be sending the stack trace along with > the fault. > We should log the stack trace on the server side and send > information to the client that there was some error > processing, but shouldn't necessarily tell them all the details. > > - Dan
I'd disagree. In certain circumstances, I think sending on the wire the stack trace of the exception that gave rise to the fault would actually be very useful for debugging and problem reporting. It could lead to much quicker resolution of issues reported by client-side developers, as opposed to trawling thru' (potentially very large) server-side logs. I'd see this as analogous to the CORBA ExceptionDetailMessage service context, which is often used by Java ORBs to marshall the offending stack trace into the exception reply. As the content of the stack trace may be deemed "sensitive", say in the case of a secure server, this facility can usually be turned off via configuration. /Eoghan
