I think it's better to continue this discussion on the camel-dev list
(please don't Reply All). Thanks to the cxf community for the input.
Hadrian
On Apr 30, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
That's a bit of the problem. Should faults be considered as
exceptions and interrupt the
That's a bit of the problem. Should faults be considered as
exceptions and interrupt the normal flow or should they considered as
messages ? I guess removing them will remove this ambiguity as well,
because one will have to either use a out message or an error.
As I replied on the other thread,
Hi Bruce,
+1 to Hiram's proposal.
I cannot speak about the original intentions, but since the idea of
fault is only specific to just a few of the technologies camel
supports, I think having a fault in an exchange could be quite
confusing for other components. I think it should be up to a
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I think faults I always think soap faults. And I think that was
> the main use case behind adding the the fault message in the exchange.
> But the fact is that a fault is just the out message from soap. A
> soap
When I think faults I always think soap faults. And I think that was
the main use case behind adding the the fault message in the exchange.
But the fact is that a fault is just the out message from soap. A
soap processor could inspect that out message and notice it's of a
fault variety. So my v
