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: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:45:49 -0500
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031103144252.033ca340@localhost>
To: "paul.downey@bt.com" <paul.downey@bt.com>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

What about this scenario?

Some number of SOAP nodes communicate with each other using one-way 
messages. Could it be possible that a node might like to send a SOAP 
notification message? That would be a one-way fault message. (FRM)

Anne


At 06:53 AM 11/3/2003, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
>+1
>IIUC:  FRM is one case of FRM, but MTF can't be expressed using the 
>FRM  pattern..
>
>Paul
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
>         Sent: Sun 02/11/2003 10:07
>         To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>         Cc:
>         Subject: are fault-replaces-message (FRM) and 
> message-triggers-fault (MTF) equivalent
>
>
>
>
>         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.
>
>         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.
>
>         So, shall we drop FRM and stick to MTF??
>
>         Sanjiva.
>
>
Received on Monday, 3 November 2003 14:46:07 GMT

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