W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2002

Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:13:03 +0200 (CEST)
To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205222106480.31247-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Prasad, 
 I respectfully disagree with making fire-and-forget a special 
case of one-way-with-fault. 
 Your example of email is not correct because email is unreliable 
by definition. Messages may disappear without anyone knowing. The 
fact that this doesn't happen much and the fact that most systems 
do report failures doesn't really change that - you can never 
rely on email.
 Anyway, my point is that for fire-and-forget you only need
one-way data channel. One end can be an SMTP sender and the other
end can be a POP3 receiver. If a node is able to receive
failures, it is able to receive success responses, too. A 
one-way-with-fault is a special case of request/response with 
empty response. Already doable in WSDL, I believe.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 22 May 2002, Prasad Yendluri wrote:

 > Jacek,
 > 
 > I see fire-and-forget as one special case of this that does not really care
 > about knowing if the request succeeded or not. BTW, here you are describing
 > this  from an *intiator* perspective :-).
 > 
 > In general there are cases when the sender would want to know if the request
 > did not succeed. E.g. email, I want to know if there was a problem delivering
 > the message as in the recipient I am trying to reach is not a valid one etc.
 > 
 > Regards, Prasad
 > 
 > 
 > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
 > 
 > >  Prasad,
 > >  I don't believe this is needed. An other name of one-way
 > > messages is fire-and-forget. This feature is seldom suitable, but
 > > sometimes you just don't need to know. 8-)
 > >  If we added the possibility of a fault, we would be adding the
 > > response at the same time, if only because no response ==
 > > success response.
 > >  IMHO one-way operations are exactly that, with the possibility
 > > of finding out the result or failure by other means, if the
 > > application requires it.
 > >  My proposal is to resolve this issue by saying "the current way
 > > is how we want it."
 > >
 > >                    Jacek Kopecky
 > >
 > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 > >
 > > On Tue, 21 May 2002, Prasad Yendluri wrote:
 > >
 > >  > Currently the One-Way operations do not provide for returning faults.
 > >  > That is, they only have a input message but no fault. Does that mean a
 > >  > one-way operation must always succeed? What if the the request is bad or
 > >  > somehow can not be processed and/or meets one of the SOAP-Fault
 > >  > conditions (assuming SOAP binding)?
 > >  >
 > >  > It seems desirable to permit faults with One-Way operations?
 > >  >
 > >  > Comments?
 > >  >
 > >  > Regards, Prasad
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > 
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 15:13:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT