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

Re: LC21 resolution issues

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:11:16 -0400
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20041027151116.678c3bc2.alewis@tibco.com>

Hmm.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:03:59 -0400
Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> wrote:

> We have decided that the HTTP binding would support all of our MEPs,
> except for for robust-in-out and robust-out-in.

Never heard of 'em.

> The issue is that Part 2 does not define such MEPs AFAICT. We had
> problem with those as they may involve 3 messages, but I don't think

Two of those listed below have this characteristic.

> that Part 2 MEPs have this characteristics, so I think that we want
> all of them:
> 
>         2.2.1 In-Only
>         2.2.2 Robust In-Only
>         2.2.3 In-Out
>         2.2.4 In-Optional-Out

Uses "message triggers fault", and as a result may have a fault in
response to the optional out message.

>         2.2.5 Out-Only
>         2.2.6 Robust Out-Only
>         2.2.7 Out-In
>         2.2.8 Out-Optional-In

Uses "message triggers fault," and as a result may have a fault in
response to the optional in message.

Note: it is not acceptable to change the fault propagation ruleset for
these MEPs.  It is, of course, perfectly feasible to define additional
MEPs that use "fault replaces message" with otherwise similar semantics
(a bit odd, in my opinion, but certainly doable).  "message triggers
fault" is generally inappropriate for HTTP, in my opinion, except for
the "robust" forms of single-message MEPs (also true of other strongly
connection-oriented, client/server protocols).

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:11:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT