Was hoping that someone has an view on this or what have they done on past flowss?
Here was my view......
I do not see any reason to attach anything to the catch or error terminals- unless you want to override the error handling. But on the whole the default behaviour of the HTTP Input node is excellant - it handles responses to timeouts and errors by packaging them into SOAP fault xml and sending it back to the http client.
My view is dont try to recode anything that IBM provides out of the box........Without a dam good reason
The HTTPInput node doesn't know about SOAP faults, I think.
I think you'll find that it's the IA90 nodes that know about SOAP faults.
Or the SOAP nodes in v6.1.
The same reasons one might hook up catch/failure terminals on an MQInput node apply to an HTTPInput node - specialized processing, error logging, etc.
I might tend to do the same thing with both - hook up catch to perform error logging and then rethrow the original exception. _________________ I am *not* the model of the modern major general.
What I was meaning that you can set a property of the HttpInput node to automatically return exceptions as soap 1.1/soap 1.2/http formats.
I think you have answered by question ( at least gave more confidence).. I just wanted to ensure that their would be no major gotchas associated with not wiring these terminals up.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum