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: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:12:26 +0100 (CET)
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201311200410.1106-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Stuart,
 simply adding another uriRef element named faultNode would be 
easy, but I think you wouldn't get away with just saying "it's an 
identifier of a node" and you'd be hunted by questions like:
 Is that the address of the node? How about nodes with multiple 
addresses, which is that? 
 Why is this not used anywhere else? Why cannot you target at a 
node rather than at a role? What is the relationship between a 
node and a role anyway?
 I think that even though more complicated, modeling it as an
extension would be much cleaner because of avoiding all that node
stuff in the core.
 Additionally, adding faultNode would IMHO _not_ be consistent
with faultActor because actor is a known and used and well
defined term, whereas node was so far only an abstract term.
 For these reasons I would initially oppose to the WG discussing
this addition. But then, the discussion has already started as 
this dialog. 8-)
 Kind regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Williams, Stuart wrote:

 > Hi Jacek,
 > 
 > I think I'd be inclined to add an optional faultNode element to the content
 > model of SOAP Faults. That would be simple and consistent with the treatment
 > of faultActor.
 > 
 > I think defining it as an extension makes such a simple thing seem awfully
 > complicated (but then I should talk ;-)).
 > 
 > Regards
 > 
 > Stuart
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 06:12:29 GMT

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