RE: Fault Component Re-usable Across Interfaces

The working group declined to make a significant change in response to
this issue [1].  The Working Group was unable to reach consensus that
moving faults to the top level rather than the interface level was
beneficial.  (Interestingly, it was also unable to reach consensus on
moving them back down into operations [2].)  Please let us know by the
end of February whether you accept our resolution of this issue.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:public-ws-desc-
>] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 7:17 PM
> To: ''
> Cc: Christopher St. John
> Subject: Fault Component Re-usable Across Interfaces
> I am writing this issue on behalf of Christopher St. John, webMethods.
> ref:
> Today, fault components are scoped to an interface component, aka
> interface
> component.{faults}
> Similar to element declaration components in message reference
> component.{element}, we would like to re-use fault components across
> interfaces. This usage naturally maps to many programming languages.
> We request the WG to elevate fault components as first class daughters
> of
> definition components. This will also eliminate unnecessary best
> practice
> statements such as,
> "For the above reason, it is considered good practice to ensure, where
> necessary, that the {name} property of Interface Fault components
> within a
> namespace are unique, thus allowing such derivation to occur without
> inadvertent error."
> Regards,
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> asirv at webmethods dot com

Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 00:05:15 UTC