- From: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:36:06 +0100
- To: Paul Nolan <NOLANPT@uk.ibm.com>
- Cc: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF37A2F399.012F9C9B-ON80257631.005441C5-80257631.0055B3DE@uk.ibm.com>
Perhaps we could add an optional Detail to the InvalidSubscription fault in order to indicate that the subscription expired if the event source has retained that information? That way we give the option to differentiate if the event source is capable of remembering expired subscriptions. As Paul says, we still need to tweak the wording so it doesn't imply that expired subscriptions are valid (e.g. "A subscription is not valid if it has expired. If the subscription is valid, the subscription manager MUST reply with a response of the following form: ") Katy From: Paul Nolan/UK/IBM@IBMGB To: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> Cc: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org Date: 14/09/2009 08:50 Subject: RE: issue 7553 (GetStatus Fault messages) Hi Gil, It certainly does not make sense to expect an Event Source remember expired subscriptions. I guess I was responding to the wording on Section 4.3 that says "If the subscription is valid and has not expired ...". So we are saying that expired subscriptions are also invalid so we do not really need to differentiate between them. I suppose we either do not need to mention "expired "at all or perhaps someone somewhere may want to cache expired subscription information as we are not preventing it. So if we remove the proposal for fault 6.14 perhaps we should also tweak the wording in section 4.3? Regards Paul Nolan Web Services Development Hursley, England, 44(0) 1962 817228 (Internal 247228) Internet: nolanpt@uk.ibm.com From: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> To: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> Date: 11/09/2009 22:12 Subject: RE: issue 7553 (GetStatus Fault messages) Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org Paul's proposal contains the following: Add two new faults to section 6. 6.13 InvalidSubscriotion [sic] This fault is generated when a request specifies a subscription that is not valid . . . 6.14 SubbscriotionExpired [sic] This fault is generated when a request specifies a subscription that has expired . . . The only way an Event Source would be able to detect if a Subscription has expired is if it "remembers" (i.e. stores state for) Subscriptions after they expire. Some (most?) Event Source's may choose to simply "forget about" (i.e. remove all state for) expired Subscriptions. After all, there isn't anything useful anyone can do with an expired Subscription, and storing the state of every Subscription that ever existed could be quite burdensome. The WS-Eventing spec cannot require Event Source impls to "remember" expired Subscriptions. That being the case, it is fairly apparent that a requester that sends a Renew, GetStatus, or Unsubscribe request for a one-valid Subscription that has expired may get back either an InvalidSubscription fault (if the Event Source forgets about expired Subscriptions) or a SubscriptionExpired fault (if the Event Source remembers expired Subscriptions). Since the state transition for both faults is exactly the same, I would like to amend the proposal to remove the "SubscriptionExpired" fault. - gp Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Monday, 14 September 2009 15:37:15 UTC