W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Issue 228 [was RE: updated draft to put F&P in more places]

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:40:31 +0600
Message-ID: <088501c460b7$f6560250$84614109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

We already allow them on (2) in the editor's draft. Did I over-do
that? I thought that was decided in the telecon ..

In any case, I'd say do both (1) and (2) for completeness and
consistency.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana"
<sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>;
"Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:45 AM
Subject: Issue 228 [was RE: updated draft to put F&P in more places]


>
> There seem to be two proposals here:
>
> 1) Allow f&p on Interface Faults and Binding Faults
> 2) Also allow f&p on Fault References
>
> Which one do we prefer?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 11:11 AM
> > To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Roberto Chinnici; Hugo Haas
> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: updated draft to put F&P in more places
> >
> >
> > We have an issue on this, number 228.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 7:19 AM
> > > To: Roberto Chinnici; Hugo Haas
> > > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: updated draft to put F&P in more places
> > >
> > >
> > > "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM> writes:
> > > >
> > > > By the way, in the spirit of hoisting faults to the same level as
> > > > operations, I think that if we had to choose between interface
> > faults
> > > > or fault references as the only place f&p's are allowed to appear
> > at,
> > > > I'd choose the former.
> > >
> > > Big +1 to this! I'll be a lot happier saying they're missing
> > > in fault reference components rather than the way it there now.
> > >
> > > In any case I think we should just allow them everywhere (which
> > > means just add to the two remaining places).
> > >
> > > Sanjiva.
Received on Saturday, 3 July 2004 00:41:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT