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: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:06:50 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192919@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@systinet.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Jacek,

Hmmm.... well if is worth doing at all I actually think its part of the
fault. If fault detail gives us enough extensibility to do this kind of
thing I'd do it there and perhaps try to encourage some kind of convention.

Hadn't even thought of headers with faults... and it does kind of raise the
question of where would those come from? Do they get sort of cloned from the
message that faulted? Does the spec. that describes a SOAP extension or the
semantics of the body  describe what headers (if any) with faults that it
generates?  Hmmmm.... I really need to reaquaint myself with the what the
spec. says about the structure of fault messages.

So... I'd be 'satisfied' if you can essentially include the informations in
fault detail already, which I think you alluded to earlier as a possibility.
I'd be even more satisfied if some 'convention' evolved such that in
circumstances where it were deemed to be a useful piece of information to
include in fault, it were included in a fault in a consistent fashion.

Do we have to write such a convention into SOAP 1.2? I don't think so... 

Stuart
--
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
> Sent: 30 January 2002 22:37
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Who Faulted (was RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, 
> section 2
> (l ong) )
> 
> 
>  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 18:06:26 GMT

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