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

Re: rationale for "message triggers fault" fault rule

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 02:16:07 +0600
Message-ID: <052201c386c6$85e65fe0$72545ecb@lankabook2>
To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I understand, but how much of stuff we don't use do we intend to
spec? We've copped out on restricting ourselves on the message
patterns we'll give names to, but now do we intend to define
additional, unused fault rules as well?

IMO it doesn't make sense to keep it. Note that any pattern
defined outside of the spec is free to define their own fault
rules as well. So no functionality is really lost by getting
rid of it.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: rationale for "message triggers fault" fault rule


> 
> No, we can't.
> 
> It *is* an important rule.  The fact that the current stuff doesn't use
> simply reflects the restricted space of the current patterns.
> 
> Amy!
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:42:49 +0600
> Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > None of the current patterns draft's patterns do not use the 
> > fault rule "message triggers fault." Can we remove this 
> > unused fault rule?
> > 
> > Sanjiva.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Amelia A. Lewis
> Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 16:16:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:26 GMT