I think you want this:
catch (BaseFault fault)
{
QName type = faul.getName();
if (type.equals(WsrpConstants.SOME_FAULT_NAME))
...
else if (type.equals(SOME_OTHER_FAULT_NAME))
...
}
catch (SoapFault fault)
{
String code = fault.getCode();
// use code as identifier - these faults are much broader
}
mabroukONnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/11/2007 10:54:10 AM:
>
> hi,
> on the same way of this conversation,
> someone can guide me if there are a specific treatments of soap faults,
> which can simplify the recognize of catched fault's type? that's mean, if
> muse library help to recognize the type of soap fault?
> if is the case, is there a list of all soap faults and BaseFault faults,
and
> teir references?
>
> may i have'nt explain clearly.
> here is an example of what i look for:
> **********************************
> try {
> result = wsResourceClient.getPropertyAsObject(PROPERTY,
> CLASS);
> // treatment of the result ... ...
> } catch (SoapFault e) {
> if the type of e is "resource unreached" then t1
> else if the type of e is "connection time out" then t2
> ... etc
> }
>
> i look for interpretation of the bold part.
>
> thank in advance
> mabroukonnet
>
>
> Daniel Jemiolo wrote:
> >
> > In Muse, we throw SoapFault (or BaseFault, in WSRF) if the error is
> > pre-defined and meant to be communicated back to the client. We use
> > runtime exceptions to report configuration and logic errors that result
in
> > the programmer needing to go back and fix the endpoint before any
clients
> > can communicate with it.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > "Vinh Nguyen \(vinguye2\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/23/2007
> > 08:04:51 PM:
> >
> >> What should be the convention for returning errors to the remote
client?
> >> Should we throw Exceptions or SoapFaults?
> >>
> >> I've been working on trying to standardize error handling from our
code.
> >> For some of our capability operations, we can explicitly throw a
> >> SoapFault. This is good because we can set a specific error code and
> >> message, and a client can catch the faults and respond according to
the
> >> error code.
> >>
> >> But in many other areas, both outside of our capability code and
within,
> >> general Exceptions are thrown instead. So we cannot control how the
> >> errors are sent to the client. I'd like to know how to make the error
> >> handling better so that a client can get errors in a consistent manner
> >> and respond in an automated fashion.
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/error-handling%
> 3A-exception-vs-soapfault-tf3457006.html#a11541983
> Sent from the Muse User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
