W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > January 2010

Re: 8283 discussion

From: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:40:37 -0800
Message-ID: <4B4387A5.9090004@oracle.com>
To: Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
I don't want to get into how faults are recorded but it seems to me that 
an implementation must at least allow for the recording of faults. 
Whether such logging is enabled or not is a configuration issue.

- gp

On 1/5/2010 9:53 AM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
>
> 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.
>


Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 18:41:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:22 GMT