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

Re: issue 6435: v7 of the WS-Eventing state tables

From: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:38:19 -0800
Message-ID: <4B5FED6B.6080809@oracle.com>
To: "Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com>
CC: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org, "Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com>

You are correct, the state tables define the states and transitions 
during the lifetime of single instance of a subscription (or an 
enumeration in WS-Enum's case). Would it help if we labeled the columns 
as "Subscription States" ("Enumeration States"), or do you think 
something more explicit needs to be said about this?

- gp

On 1/26/2010 11:57 AM, Li, Li (Li) wrote:
> Gil,
> Thanks for the update. After reading the tables and the notes, I wasn't
> sure whose states we are describing. It appears that you are describing
> the states of the processes, e.g. subscriber/sink or event
> source/manager. However, this is difficult because each of these
> processes can handle many subscriptions simultaneously. As the result,
> the state tables have many empty cells that are undefined.
> So what you did is actually defining the states of those processes
> regarding one subscription. If this is the case, I think it is better to
> directly define the state transitions for the subscription, instead of
> the states of the processes.
> I think the information in the current tables can be reused.
> This would lead to a more concise and precise description of the
> behavior of the processes that developers care about.
> Thanks.
> Li Li

Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 07:40:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:54 UTC