RE: 8283 discussion

It may be useful to state that a fault that is generated may be transmitted. But whether an implementation persists the fault or some information about it in some form is a design choice.  For example, it is possible to have compliant implementations that never persist state.

How about this proposal:


*       Include changes to fault definitions as proposed to all WS-RA specifications.

*       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. When a fault is generated, a compliant implementation MAY transmit the fault.

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 10:41 AM
To: Ram Jeyaraman
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: 8283 discussion

I don't want to get into how faults are recorded but it seems to me that an implementation must at least allow for the recording of faults. Whether such logging is enabled or not is a configuration issue.

- gp

On 1/5/2010 9:53 AM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
I am fine with clarifying this from a protocol standpoint without getting into implementation details. For example, from a protocol standpoint, a fault is generated due to a failure of the request. But how the implementation handles the failure (such as whether/how it records that information) is an implementation detail. Thanks.

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org> [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gilbert Pilz
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:31 AM
To: Ram Jeyaraman
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Subject: 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:

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<mailto: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.