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: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:13:15 -0500
To: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20031107131315.5aac9105.alewis@tibco.com>

Dear Kevin,

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 01:20:21 +0100
"Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com> wrote:
> A related question: What's the semantic of multiple faults in an
> operation (as in Sanjiva's example)? With WSDL1.1, I believe having
> multiple faults under an operation means they are alternatives.

I agree.  I see no reason to change this under any circumstances.

> But with the introduction of multi-in and multi-outs, it might be
> becoming confusing now. The meaning seems maybe different based on the
> pattern. (e.g, for an in-out pattern, it may still mean alternatives,
> but for in-multi-out, it's unclear) 

Sorry, I don't see why this is the case.  We currently have no
"multi-in" or "multi-out" patterns in our part two.  If someone can come
up with a situation in which different faults are generated for the same
messageReference in a fashion that *needs to be described in WSDL*, then
I will stand corrected and humbled.  I don't see it.  I don't see it at
*all* with the current set of patterns; I don't see that one could
easily generate a pattern or set of patterns in which there is a
different semantic than "alternative" for multiple faults associated
with a single messageReference.  But if someone can, let's talk about
it.

> BTW, I just finished reading the part 2 spec and my impression is that
> this difference is not efficiently expressed, especially since the
> scenario you described below is not included in the spec. Would it be
> nicer for the readers if we can add your example to the spec?

If someone would like to propose the MTF request/response (with multiple
nodes) as a pattern, I'm certainly willing to write it up and include it
on the direction of the WG.  Having been the pushy b***h who got several
patterns in *already*, I think that perhaps someone else should push for
that one, if they see value in it.  I have no problem in offering a
writeup, if that would help, but I'm not going to be the one to make the
proposal that it be included.

As to the difference ... this is the difference between MTF and FRM?  I
think that you are probably correct.  The thing that I would like to add
to the part two spec would be brief narrative descriptions of use cases
and applicability for each pattern, no more than a couple sentences
each.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 13:13:07 GMT

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