W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-async-tf@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Minutes of 2005-04-06 call

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:52:18 -0400
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
Message-id: <cdf60f2e8782f4d297ca743244fd77c8@Sun.COM>

+1, the discussion of in-optional-fault to cope with HTTP errors has me 
completely baffled.

Marc.

On Apr 13, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:

>
> Apologies for missing the last concall.
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I don't understand why 
> transport level problems/faults (such as HTTP 404 status code) are 
> being discussed in the context of MEPs. The way I see it, there are 
> lot of things that can go wrong, even in the case of one-way MEP using 
> UDP. For example, there may be a DNS problem or a network disconnect 
> (for that matter non-transport related problems such as out-of-memory 
> errors can also occur). To me, this does not affect the MEP design in 
> any way. The application may have to deal with it as it may see that 
> error somehow/somewhere, but this does not change the MEP (from an 
> in-only to robust-in-only). In the case of SOAP the change from 
> in-only to robust-in-only has to be made iff there may be a SOAP-fault 
> coming back.
>
> -Anish
> --
>
>
> Hugo Haas wrote:
>>  are at:
>>     http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-ws-async-minutes.html
>
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 20:52:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Wednesday, 13 April 2005 20:52:24 GMT