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, 10 Nov 2003 10:14:00 -0500
To: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20031110101400.42c86b40.alewis@tibco.com>

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:04:36 +0100
"Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com> wrote:
> <kevinL>
> Are you suggesting to formally remove section 3.4 and 3.9 for the
> to-be-published working draft? The multi patterns are still
> "conditionally" retained in part 2 spec, and if such patterns are
> used, the meaning of multiple faults within one operation is not
> clear. 

I do not believe that this is the case.  The editorial note appeared
prior to the failure to find anyone to support these patterns.  They are
currently marked @diff="delete", but it appears that placing the
difference attributes on a div may be ineffective; it does not seem to
propagate to the html (the added patterns are marked @diff="add", but
also do not have the highlighting one would expect).

If the WG prefers, these attributes can be removed and the source
cleaned up (remove the multi- patterns, drop the @diff="add" attribute
on the added patterns).

> If people in the WG was not able to see the subtle differences between
> the two rulesets (as indicated by the suggestions to merge them)
> without the "MTF request/response (with multiple nodes)" scenario, I
> will not be surprised to see that the general readers will be more
> confused. 
> 
> I don't think that we have to define a new pattern to offer the
> clarification.  The patterns provided in part 2 is not an exhaustive
> list, and others are free to define their own patterns. The fault
> rulesets are intended to work for all potential patterns, right? If
> that's the case, we can just offer some rationale text in section 2.

I'm firmly in favor of adding explanatory text.  I don't know if this is
best accomplished in part two, or in the tutorial.

> 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.
> 
> <kevinL> 
> that would be really helpful, too.  Looking forward to seeing it in
> the part2 draft.

Not approved, at the moment.  I suppose we could open an issue ....

> Some diagrams illustrating the direction and cardinality of each
> pattern should also be helpful. The pattern task force provided a set
> of diagrams for each pattern a little while ago [1], why should we
> hide them from the general readers? If the editors are interested, I
> can offer to provide an updated version of these diagrams for your
> use.

David Booth would be the best person to consult about this.  I am
(notoriously) not visually oriented; I do not find diagrams of message
exchange patterns to be useful (rather the reverse).

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 10:13:46 GMT

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