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

Re: proposal for faults

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:59:38 +0600
Message-ID: <00df01c388f5$d08666e0$72545ecb@lankabook2>
To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

"Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
> 
> Perhaps I have misunderstood your point here, but this is not the
> current design of the patterns, so this proposal has the difficult task
> of proposing a simultaneous change there. The current abstraction of the
> pattern URI is quite consistent: it does not define specific message
> types nor specific fault types. Requiring it to do the latter when it
> does not do the former seems completely unreasonable. Would the
> request-response pattern URI definition define application-level faults
> to the request?

(I sent a direct response to Jeffrey by mistake .. this that + more
thoughts.)

Oops, you're right .. but faults are of course different from other
messages in that other messages in a pattern have a 1-1 relationship
with an actual message. Hmm, I guess in general even that may not be
the case.

I see we need more thought/work in this area. Can  we live with a 1-1
relationship for message references to real messages? Otherwise
even that gets messy. 

For faults, I guess I see that a single fault ref can be implemented 
by different app level fault types and there's no way the pattern 
def can take that into account. Given that, I'd be ok with allowing
one to repeat <fault> elements with the same messageReference value
to have the semantic that Roberto indicated. Roberto's syntax pref
is ok too, but I'm a bit concerned with syntactic non-similarity with
input/output.

Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 11:00:09 GMT

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