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

Re: rationale for "message triggers fault" fault rule

From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:47:52 -0400
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20030929164752.4635e28f.alewis@tibco.com>

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 02:16:07 +0600
Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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?

Fine.  Then I propose that we change both of the output-first pattern to
use the message-triggers-fault rule.  That's what *I* want, and what
will need to be defined for messaging context.

I don't expect other people to agree, though.  However, I want to be
able to specify such patterns, which I believe are *far* more realistic
in asynchronous operations, as soon as the spec publishes.  If we *have*
to use the rules, then I propose we apply them to both of the
output-first operations.

> 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.

The same is arguably true of nearly all of the spec.  All we *really*
need is an extensible definitions element.  YMMV.

Amy!

> 
> 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
> 
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 16:47:53 GMT

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