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: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:58:07 -0500
To: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Cc: paul.downey@bt.com, sanjiva@watson.ibm.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20031103145807.0863d158.alewis@tibco.com>

It would make more sense, under the circumstances, to use the
robust-one-way instead, since it is designed for precisely this sort of
scenario.  Otherwise, one might define the "fault" as a just-a-message.

In general, patterns *never* permit the first message to be a fault. 
FRM says so explicitly; since MTF requires a message to trigger on, it's
implicit.

Amy!
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:45:49 -0500
Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net> wrote:

> 
> 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.
> >
> >
> 
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 3 November 2003 14:59:34 GMT

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