+1 I couldn't have put it better myself (though I did try :-) 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 >> > >Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 21:38:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Wednesday, 13 April 2005 21:38:28 GMT