RE: 8283 discussion

I am fine with clarifying this from a protocol standpoint without getting into implementation details. For example, from a protocol standpoint, a fault is generated due to a failure of the request. But how the implementation handles the failure (such as whether/how it records that information) is an implementation detail. Thanks.

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gilbert Pilz
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:31 AM
To: Ram Jeyaraman
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: 8283 discussion

That's not what I asked. "Request failure" and "processing cessation" are two different things. I assert that our definition of "generate a fault" should state that when a fault is generated (a) processing of the request in which the fault occurs ceases (b) some record of this fault is produced and possibly recorded (depending on log/trace config) (c) a fault message is optionally transmitted (if a response was expected this fault is transmitted in lieu of the response or no response is transmitted).

- gp

On 12/31/2009 3:46 PM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:

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<mailto: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.