Re: 8283 discussion

That's not what I asked. "Request failure" and "processing cessation" 
are two different things. I assert that our definition of "generate a 
fault" should state that when a fault is generated (a) processing of the 
request in which the fault occurs ceases (b) some record of this fault 
is produced and possibly recorded (depending on log/trace config) (c) a 
fault message is optionally transmitted (if a response was expected this 
fault is transmitted in lieu of the response or no response is transmitted).

- gp

On 12/31/2009 3:46 PM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
>
> Ø  Is it fair to assume that the act of generating a fault will halt 
> the processing of the request in who's context the fault was generated?
>
>  
>
> Yes, readers familiar with general fault semantics would conclude that 
> the corresponding request failed when a fault is generated.
>
>  
>
> *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 18, 2009 1:42 PM
> *To:* Ram Jeyaraman
> *Cc:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: 8283 discussion
>
>  
>
> Do we need to say anything about what effect generating a fault has on 
> the processing of requests? Is it fair to assume that the act of 
> generating a fault will halt the processing of the request in who's 
> context the fault was generated?
>
> - gp
>
> On 12/15/2009 10:46 AM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8283
>
>  
>
> Pursuant to the action I took from last meeting, I suggest adding a 
> definition [1] of  what "generate" means in the context of faults.
>
>  
>
> Thus, to resolve this issue, I suggest:
>
> Include changes to fault definitions as proposed in the issue.
>
> Add [1] to the compliance section.
>
>  
>
> Thanks.
>
>  
>
> [1] Add to the compliance section of all WS-RA specifications
>
>  
>
> The term "generate" in used relation to the various faults defined by 
> this specification. This term implies that a fault is produced but 
> does not necessarily imply that it is transmitted.
>