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

Re: issue 7553 (GetStatus Fault messages)

From: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:14:10 -0700
Message-ID: <4AAEC032.6080109@oracle.com>
To: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
CC: Paul Nolan <NOLANPT@uk.ibm.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
+1

On 9/14/2009 8:36 AM, Katy Warr wrote:
>
> Perhaps we could add an optional Detail to the InvalidSubscription 
> fault in order to indicate that the subscription expired if the event 
> source has retained that information?  That way we give the option to 
> differentiate if the event source is capable of remembering expired 
> subscriptions.  
>
> As Paul says, we still need to tweak the wording so it doesn't imply 
> that expired subscriptions are valid (e.g. "A subscription is not 
> valid if it has expired.  If the subscription is valid, the 
> subscription manager MUST reply with a response of the following form: ")
>
> Katy
>
>
>
> From: 	Paul Nolan/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> To: 	Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
> Cc: 	"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
> <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, 
> public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
> Date: 	14/09/2009 08:50
> Subject: 	RE: issue 7553 (GetStatus Fault messages)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Hi Gil,
>
> It certainly does not make sense to expect an Event Source remember 
> expired subscriptions. I guess I was responding to the wording on 
> Section 4.3 that says "If the subscription is valid and has not 
> expired ...". So we are saying that expired subscriptions are also 
> invalid so we do not really need to differentiate between them. I 
> suppose we either do not need to mention "expired "at all or perhaps 
> someone somewhere may want to cache expired subscription information 
> as we are not preventing it.
>
> So if we remove the proposal for fault 6.14 perhaps we should also 
> tweak the wording in section 4.3?
>
> Regards
>
> Paul Nolan
> Web Services Development
> Hursley, England, 44(0) 1962 817228 (Internal 247228)          
> Internet: nolanpt@uk.ibm.com
>
> From: 	Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
> To: 	"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
> <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
> Date: 	11/09/2009 22:12
> Subject: 	RE: issue 7553 (GetStatus Fault messages)
> Sent by: 	public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Paul's proposal contains the following:
> Add two new faults to section 6.
>
> 6.13 InvalidSubscriotion [sic]
>
> This fault is generated when a request specifies a subscription that 
> is not
> valid
>
> . . .
>
> 6.14 SubbscriotionExpired [sic]
>
> This fault is generated when a request specifies a subscription that has
> expired
>
> . . .
>
> The only way an Event Source would be able to detect if a Subscription 
> has expired is if it "remembers" (i.e. stores state for) Subscriptions 
> after they expire. Some (most?) Event Source's may choose to simply 
> "forget about" (i.e. remove all state for) expired Subscriptions. 
> After all, there isn't anything useful anyone can do with an expired 
> Subscription, and storing the state of every Subscription that ever 
> existed could be quite burdensome. The WS-Eventing spec cannot require 
> Event Source impls to "remember" expired Subscriptions.
>
> That being the case, it is fairly apparent that a requester that sends 
> a Renew, GetStatus, or Unsubscribe request for a one-valid 
> Subscription that has expired may get back either an 
> InvalidSubscription fault (if the Event Source forgets about expired 
> Subscriptions) or a SubscriptionExpired fault (if the Event Source 
> remembers expired Subscriptions). Since the state transition for both 
> faults is exactly the same, I would like to amend the proposal to 
> remove the "SubscriptionExpired" fault.
>
> - gp
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> /
> /
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 
> 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /
> /
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 
> 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
>


Received on Monday, 14 September 2009 22:15:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:13 GMT