Re: Corrected one-way MEP proposal

I think the proposed change is better.  You /can/ send faults, just not
as part of this MEP.

BTW, in re-reading the corrected version, I noticed that I still hadn't
gotten rid of all the "request" and "response" stuff, but rather than
post yet another version it seemed better to fold that in with
substantive changes.

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

>I think this is basically very good.  I do have one concern on faults:
>
><original section="6.4.2">
>Abnormal operation during a One-way message exchange is be caused by a 
>failure to transfer the message. Such failure might be silent at either or 
>both of the sending and receiving SOAP nodes involved, or might result in 
>the generation of a SOAP or binding-specific fault (see 6.4.4 Fault 
>Handling). Also, during abnormal operation the SOAP nodes involved in the 
>message exchange might differ as to whether the message exchange completed 
>successfully. 
></original>
><original section="6.4.4">
>This MEP makes no claims about the disposition or handling of SOAP faults 
>generated by the either SOAP node. 
></original>
>
><proposed section="6.4.2">
>Abnormal operation during a One-way message exchange is be caused by a 
>failure to transfer the message. Such failure might be silent at either or 
>both of the sending and receiving SOAP nodes involved, or might result in 
>the generation of a SOAP or binding-specific fault.  Note, however, that 
>such faults are not in general made available to nodes other than the 
>generating node (see 6.4.4 Fault Handling).   Accordingly, when such 
>errors are encountered, the SOAP nodes involved in the message exchange 
>might have differing awareness of the success or failure of the 
>transmission.
></proposed>
><proposed section="6.4.4">
>Faults generated during operation of this MEP are made available at the 
>generating node, but are not transmitted through the network;  because 
>this MEP provides for transmission of exactly one message from sender to 
>receiver,  a receiving node that faults when processing a message MUST NOT 
>transmit that fault to the sender of the original message. 
>(Nothing prevents the use of additional SOAP interactions to transmit to 
>the originator information extracted from such a fault, but any such 
>transmission is beyond the scope of this MEP.  Note also that this MEP 
>provides no standard mechanism by which a receiver can determine an 
>address to use when trasmitting such a nonstandard fault response.)
></proposed>
>
>The original strikes me as the sort of spec that a sympathetic reader can 
>use to justify what's intended, but which doesn't come out and say what we 
>mean:  if you send the fault back, you're not using this MEP.  This MEP 
>provides for exactly one message in all cases. Period.  So we >do< make a 
>claim about the disposition of SOAP faults:  per this MEP, you don't send 
>them anywhere.  I think we need to say that.
>
>--------------------------------------
>Noah Mendelsohn 
>IBM Corporation
>One Rogers Street
>Cambridge, MA 02142
>1-617-693-4036
>--------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>