RE: 8283 discussion

Dave said:


Ø  But my real question. The generation of a fault should also imply the processing/side effects etc didn't or may have occurred. Can we capture this semantic as well, or is this behavior too operation specific?

Describing the processing semantics from a protocol point of view is useful.

Doug said:


Ø  How about something like:

The term "generate" is used in relation to the various faults defined by this specification to imply that a fault is produced, no further processing SHOULD be performed, and the fault would normally be transmitted. However, there might be reasons why a compliant implement might choose not to transmit the fault - for example, security concerns - in these situations the fault MAY NOT be transmitted.

This looks good. Here is an updated version with minor wording changes:

The term "generate" is used in relation to the various faults defined by this specification to imply that a fault is produced, no further processing SHOULD be performed, and the fault would normally be transmitted. However, there might be reasons why a compliant implement might choose not to transmit the fault - for example, security concerns - in these situations the fault MAY NOT be transmitted.

This seems reasonable.

Thanks.

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:47 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: 8283 discussion


I like the general direction.  I'm a bit worried that the proposed text, when read by a non-ws* geek, will be interpreted too loosely.  The current text, to me, can be read to imply that faults can always be trashed w/o the need for any reason at all (basically hardcoding wsa:faultTo = /dev/null). I think all of us understand that implementations are supposed to transmit the fault under normal situations and its only due to special reasons (like security concerns) that would prevent it from being sent.  So, I'd prefer if we made that sentiment clear.

Also, to address Dave's question - what if we followed WS-I BP's lead?  It says:
        When a fault is generated, no further processing should be performed.

How about something like:

The term "generate" is used in relation to the various faults defined by this specification to imply that a fault is produced, no further processing SHOULD be performed, and the fault would normally be transmitted. However, there might be reasons why a compliant implement might choose not to transmit the fault - for example, security concerns - in these situations the fault MAY NOT be transmitted.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com<mailto:dug@us.ibm.com>
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.

David Snelling <David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com<mailto:David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com>>
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>

01/15/2010 06:16 AM

To

Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com<mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>>

cc

Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com<mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>>

Subject

Re: 8283 discussion







Ram,

The first "in" in your statement should be "is". Generally I like this approach.

But my real question. The generation of a fault should also imply the processing/side effects etc didn't or may have occurred. Can we capture this semantic as well, or is this behavior too operation specific?


On 14 Jan 2010, at 22:51, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:

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<mailto: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.

Take care:

    Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com >
    Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Limited
    Hayes Park Central
    Hayes End Road
    Hayes, Middlesex  UB4 8FE
    Reg. No. 4153469

    +44-7590-293439 (Mobile)


______________________________________________________________________

Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Limited
Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE
Registered No. 4153469

This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of addressee(s) and
may contain information which is privileged and confidential. Unauthorised
use or copying for disclosure is strictly prohibited. The fact that this
e-mail has been scanned by Trendmicro Interscan and McAfee Groupshield does
not guarantee that it has not been intercepted or amended nor that it is
virus-free.