W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

Re: i029 Disallowing Faults

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:19:46 +0600
Message-ID: <019801c4c8ae$4c7c3650$64c83109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Harris Reynolds" <hreynolds@webmethods.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

This can be done when you combine WS-A and WSDL 2.0: WSDL 2.0 has
a MEP called "in-only" which has the fire-n-forget behavior you
want. There's also a MEP called "robust-in" which has the send-and-
maybe-get-a-fault pattern.

wsa:FaultTo (and any algorigthm to derive a fault address using
wsa:ReplyTo or wsa:From) will not come into play if the MEP is


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harris Reynolds" <hreynolds@webmethods.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 4:23 AM
Subject: i029 Disallowing Faults

> I am starting discussion of an issue raised earlier by Doug Davis.  This
> the description from the issues list:
> "wsa:FaultTo "may be absent if the sender cannot receive fault messages
> (e.g. is a one-way application message)." But it also says that in the
> absence of wsa:FaultTo the wsa:ReplyTo/From may be used. So, how does a
> sender really say that it doesn't want ANY fault messages at all but still
> be allowed to specify a wsa:From?"
> This is essentially asking for a "fire and forget" MEP that will never
> receive a reply even under fault conditions.  I am struggling with whether
> this condition actually falls within the scope of WS-A.
> >From my perspective WS-A has the most to offer by enabling the following
> three things:
> 1) True Asynchronous Messaging
> 2) Transport Independent Addressing and
> 3) Stateful Service Interactions (session mgmt via ref props)
> An application that wants to send a message and never worry about a
> response, including a fault, can easily do so today without WS-A.
> Thoughts from others?  Doug?
> ~harris
> ------------------------------ 
> Harris Reynolds
> webMethods, Inc.
> http://www.webmethods.com/
> ------------------------------
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 11:54:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:07 UTC