Heylas, On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:00:33 -0800 Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> wrote: > We discussed yesterday issue 76c[1] about fault messages in the MEPs > we define. > > The Group's understanding was that, at the MEP level, the description > of the message exchange was clearly to send back a fault, but that a > binding may want to allow an agent not to send the fault, e.g. for > optimization purposes. > > Is that correct? I think that I might phrase it differently, with nearly the same results. As the BEA folks pointed out, the MEPs define propagation rules for faults. So, first, there's a difference between generation and propagation. I think this is your "send back a fault." A problem here is "back" since the fault propagation rulesets define the target node, based on whether its fault-replaces-message versus message-triggers-fault (in the latter case, "back" is apt, but it may well not be for the former). Okay. A part of the goal of the rulesets, like the MEPs, is to allow the contract to be clear. So, if a fault is generated, and the ruleset provides a direction and target for propagation, then it should be propagated, and a binding that doesn't want to do that ought not be using that ruleset. On the other hand, it may not be possible (for a variety of reasons, all transient rather than due to the constraints imposed by the binding) to send the message. There is no guarantee that an agent will *succeed* in sending a fault. There is only a requirement that it try. Consequently: a *binding* may not arbitrarily change the ruleset, making faults optional in the name of optimization. A binding that needs to do so should define a different ruleset, clearly. An agent, however, after having made a best effort to propagate a generated fault, may not be able to do so. The binding may, in fact, provide guidelines on what "best effort" means, in context of the binding. So: a fault propagation ruleset may not be arbitrarily modified by a binding. When a fault is generated, an agent is required to make best effort to propagate the fault by the rules specified. A binding may, however, clarify the meaning of "best effort" for agents using that binding. > If so, we should clarify this and consider it in the context of our > SOAP 1.2 binding, which is being called out in the issue. > > 1. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC76c Does the above help any? Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.comReceived on Friday, 12 November 2004 18:40:56 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT