W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

RE: Who Faulted (was RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, section 2 (l ong) )

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:37:26 +0100 (CET)
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201302331570.7210-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Stuart,
 I think I can see where you are headed.
 I can also envision an extension which would keep a header in
all messages, targeted at ../next, whose semantics would be that
"any generated fault message (resulting from processing of this
original message) will contain a header with the faulting node's
identifier (what it means would be specified by this extension)". 
 This extension can be wery simply added later by W3C or any 
third party, just as our MU reporting extension, and it would 
further prove the model.
 What do you think? Would the possibility of such a solution (in
the future) satisfy you? (I don't like just leaving people "not 
pushing", I like satisfying them.)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Williams, Stuart wrote:

 > Hi Jacek,
 > 
 > I'm not sure I agree. Independently we have the concepts of roles (or
 > actors) and nodes. Each can have identity and in a Web world I'd identities
 > to be expressed as URI's. At the SOAP level I don't think node identity is
 > "very dependent on the binding used" - a least not syntactically from the
 > pov of encoding an identifier for a node in a message - its 'just another'
 > URI.
 > 
 > But... I'm not going to push that we go there.
 > 
 > Good night,
 > 
 > Stuart
 > 
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
 > > Sent: 30 January 2002 22:11
 > > To: Williams, Stuart
 > > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
 > > Subject: Re: Who Faulted (was RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, 
 > > section 2
 > > (long) )
 > > 
 > > 
 > >  Stuart,
 > >  exactly as you say, so far we have avoided identifying nodes and 
 > > we were talking about roles only. I think adding addressing, 
 > > which is very dependent on the binding used and on other things, 
 > > to the core (next to faulting) would be a lot of hairy work. I 
 > > suggest we don't go there. Or at least not for 1.2.
 > >  Good night, 8-)
 > > 
 > >                    Jacek Kopecky
 > > 
 > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Williams, Stuart wrote:
 > > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > Hi Jacek,
 > >  > 
 > >  > Sure... it wasn't a heavy suggestion, but any such 
 > > extension might benefit
 > >  > from a common mechanism to denote what node faulted, 
 > > rather than inventing
 > >  > its own means of dropping the information in the fault 
 > > detail. Doing it an
 > >  > common way also means that the information is accessible 
 > > to things that
 > >  > don't understand the extension. It may also be the case 
 > > that there is such a
 > >  > mechanism... I haven't looked at the faulting parts of the 
 > > spec recently.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Any not really pushing, was just wondering generally 
 > > whether it was more
 > >  > useful to know what node or what role faulted and in some 
 > > cases you'd
 > >  > probably want one, the other or both (although we have now 
 > > completely
 > >  > avoided identifying nodes (I think) by talking solely about roles).
 > >  > 
 > >  > Cheers,
 > >  > 
 > >  > Stuart
 > >  > 
 > > 
 > 
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 17:37:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT