W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > June 2007

executing Cindy's proposed change - two questions

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:23:43 +1000
Message-ID: <BEE2BD647C052D4FA59B42F5E2D946B37201B7@AUSYMS12.ca.com>
To: "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
I have modified Cindy's proposed default WSDL 2.0 Action pattern for faults slightly, by dropping the delimiter between the operation name and the direction token - this matches the pattern for non-faults.
 
Her proposal:
 
[tns] [delimiter] [interface name] [delimiter] [operation name] [delimiter] [direction] [delimiter] [fault name] 
 
My version:
 
[tns] [delimiter] [interface name] [delimiter] [operation name] [direction] [delimiter] [fault name] 
 
An example following my pattern could be:
 
http://greath.example.com/2004/wsdl/resSvc/reservationInterface/opCheckAvailabilityResponse/AvailabilityNotAvailableFault
 
(Let me know if you object to my choice of fault name...)
 
- - - -
 
Second problem: should the direction token be that of the message to which the fault is reponding, rather than the direction of the fault? In other words, should the example above, presuming that the message which triggered the fault had an action of http://greath.example.com/2004/wsdl/resSvc/reservationInterface/opCheckAvailabilityRequest , be 
 
http://greath.example.com/2004/wsdl/resSvc/reservationInterface/opCheckAvailabilityRequest/AvailabilityNotAvailableFault
 
?
 
I will assume, for now, that this is not the case, but what I put above may be what people expect.
 
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
tony.rogers@ca.com
co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS
co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Rogers, Tony
Sent: Tue 19-Jun-07 9:58
To: Bob Freund; [WS-A]
Subject: executing Monica's proposed change


Looking at the words to resolve Monica's issue, I find myself stumbling over the repetition of "to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, " in successive sentences. Would anyone be perturbed if I exercised my editorial licence, and elided the second copy of this clause to a semicolon? What I'm suggesting is that we convert:
 
 In order to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, an additional policy alternative should be provided which does not contain this assertion.  To indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, the compact authoring style for an optional policy assertion provided by WS-Policy V1.5 [link] may be used.  
 
into:
 
 In order to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, an additional policy alternative should be provided which does not contain this assertion; the compact authoring style for an optional policy assertion provided by WS-Policy V1.5 [link] may be used.  
 
I believe this is as explicit, but somewhat easier to read.
 
If people (especially Monica) object, I'll use the former version.
 
 
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
tony.rogers@ca.com
co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS
co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C

 
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 00:23:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:19 GMT