W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > December 2009

RE: 8283 discussion

From: Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:46:15 +0000
To: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
CC: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Message-ID: <503546C5699C1144BDEA0D0DFFE7F881181B24F1@TK5EX14MBXC119.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
  Is it fair to assume that the act of generating a fault will halt the processing of the request in who's context the fault was generated?

Yes, readers familiar with general fault semantics would conclude that the corresponding request failed when a fault is generated.

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 1:42 PM
To: Ram Jeyaraman
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: 8283 discussion

Do we need to say anything about what effect generating a fault has on the processing of requests? Is it fair to assume that the act of generating a fault will halt the processing of the request in who's context the fault was generated?

- gp

On 12/15/2009 10:46 AM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8283

Pursuant to the action I took from last meeting, I suggest adding a definition [1] of  what "generate" means in the context of faults.

Thus, to resolve this issue, I suggest:

Include changes to fault definitions as proposed in the issue.

Add [1] to the compliance section.

Thanks.

[1] Add to the compliance section of all WS-RA specifications

The term "generate" in used relation to the various faults defined by this specification. This term implies that a fault is produced but does not necessarily imply that it is transmitted.
Received on Thursday, 31 December 2009 23:46:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:16 GMT