Sorry, yes, I was referring to wsdl faults. These were not something I ever ran into with gSOAP even though server could still throw faults. (or raise exceptions in their vocabulary) What are the implications of explicitly specifing faults in the wsdl? The only sympton I've seen is that the java clients recognize it and consequently require a try/catch around it.
Is the case that if one does not specifying faults, and raises an exception from the server, that the client gets a generic fault of some sort as opposed to the specific type that one can specify in the wsdl? -Bruce On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]>wrote: > Do you wants faults declared in your WSDL? > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Bruce Edge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In my days as a gSOAP slave I never added explicit exceptions to the wsdl > > as > > it was assumed that any soap call could throw an exception. > > > > I noticed that some of the cxf examples explicitly define exceptions in > the > > wsdl. What's the reason for this? > > Does it force the client to add exception handlers? > > > > Thanks > > > > -Bruce > > >
