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

RE: proposal for faults

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:09:08 -0700
Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB8031FA455@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] writes:
> "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com> writes:
> > > I guess I could live with that. Infaults do seem rare, except when
> > > you're writing down the conjugate of a in-out-with-fault
operation.
> >
> > We need to be very careful about special-casing these core features
of
> > WSDL because we don't currently imagine how people will use them.
> > Allowing description of only faults with direction output is an
> > optimization that will be difficult to defend generally and is
likely a
> > mistake.
> 
> I agree we must not special case- what I was proposing fully supports
> infaults too, 

Great!

> but requires one to look at the messageRef value
> to determine the fault direction. 

Is this tied to the proposal to bury the information about direction
behind the pattern URI?

> This, it is definitely *not*
> "allowing description of only faults with direction output". I
> agree with you 100% that we must support description of infaults

Great!

> and what I proposed (and Roberto can live with) supports that.
> 
> Sorry for being unclear.

Thank you (in advance) for clarifying.
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 11:11:12 GMT

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