W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2003

RE: are fault-replaces-message (FRM) and message-triggers-fault (MTF) equivalent

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 17:47:48 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1D14@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <alewis@tibco.com>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
i suppose that's a constriction of how FRM is really just a special case of MTF but for me, the distinction between FRM and MTF rules didn't trigger that fault! 
 
Paul

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Amelia A. Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com] 
	Sent: Mon 03/11/2003 15:28 
	To: Sanjiva Weerawarana 
	Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
	Subject: Re: are fault-replaces-message (FRM) and message-triggers-fault (MTF) equivalent
	
	


	-1.  Sorry.  See below.
	
	On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 16:07:37 +0600
	Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
	> We currently have two fault patterns:
	>
	> - FRM which can be used *after* the first message (since it doesn't
	>   make sense to start a MEP with a fault :-))
	> - MTF which can be associated with the first message even, but of
	>   course the fault follows the message since its the occurrence
	>   of the mesasage which triggers the fault.
	>
	> Now, can we not just stick to MTF? FRM seems like just a special
	> case when the fault is associated with the first message but
	> defined with MTF. 
	
	Not exactly.  MTF specifies that the node faulting must try to return
	the fault to the sender of the message.  FRM specifies that the node
	faulting must try to send the node to the designated recipient of the
	message it is supposed to transmit.
	
	This means, for instance, in the commonly-discussed case of a three-way
	req/resp (node1 in-> service out-> node2), that the target for the fault
	generated by the service differs depending upon the model used.  For
	FRM: node2.  For MTF: node1.  This has security implications.
	
	> With FRM, we'd specify a simple in-out scenario with faults
	> as follows:
	>     <operation name='foo'>
	>         <input messageReference='A' body='x:e1'/>
	>         <output messageReference='B' body='x:e2'/>
	>         <outfault messageReference='B' details='f:f1'/>
	>         <outfault messageReference='B' details='f:f2'/>
	>     </operation>
	>
	> If we switch the in-out to use MTF instead, this would look like
	> this:
	>     <operation name='foo'>
	>         <input messageReference='A' body='x:e1'/>
	>         <output messageReference='B' body='x:e2'/>
	>         <outfault messageReference='A' details='f:f1'/>
	>         <outfault messageReference='A' details='f:f2'/>
	>     </operation>
	>
	> The only difference is the value of outfault/@messageReference.
	>
	> I can't think of a case where an FRM scenario couldn't be expressed
	> using MTF thus.
	
	in-only, out-only.  Using MTF, you get faulting.  Using FRM, you get
	WSDL 1.1 style no-fault operations.
	
	> So, shall we drop FRM and stick to MTF??
	
	*laugh*  Last time, the proposal was to drop MTF and use only FRM.  I
	think both are necessary, honestly.  Although I tend to agree that MTF
	is more robust.
	
	Amy!
	--
	Amelia A. Lewis
	Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
	alewis@tibco.com
	
	

Received on Monday, 3 November 2003 12:49:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT