- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:38:00 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webMethods.com>
- cc: fablet@crf.canon.fr, <keithba@microsoft.com>, <prasad.yendluri@webMethods.com>, <Waqar.sadiq@eds.com>, <sanjiva@us.ibm.com>, <ksankar@cisco.com>, Web Services Description mailing list <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Prasad,
you made an excellent point about 1b, I agree it's not a good
approach now.
As for 1a, I think we need to be consistent - why have different
faults and not different successes? I'd be OK with either both or
none.
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Prasad Yendluri wrote:
> > 1) RequestResponseOperations references a successful response
> > Message and a list of failure response Messages. I believe we
> > should change this in one of the two ways below (I really don't
> > know which one is the better one):
>
> > 1a) One success response Message and one failure response
> > Message. Rationale - we don't describe possible variations of the
> > success response, why should we describe the variations of the
> > failure response?
>
> <PY>
> I think the current way of multiple faults is desirable (though only one
> of them could be returned). This allows for capturing all error
> (fault-conditions) that an operation could result in. That is an
> operation can fail for multitude of reasons and it should be possible to
> enumerate them. It might be the case that one fault message (say at the
> binding level) might be able to capture thins but, at the abstract
> level it would be desirable to permit enumeration of > 1 fault
> conditions.
>
> If any I would call for permitting alternate +ve responses as well (we
> have an issue that captures this).
> </PY>
>
> > 1b) A set of response Messages without distinguishing between
> > failure and success responses. Rationale - the distinction
> > between a failure and a success is sometimes fuzzy and belongs to
> > the application.
>
> <PY>I have the opposite view. I think it is very useful to see the
> failure conditions as separate from positive response conditions at
> abstract level. Other wise how to you define flows that are conditional
> ?</PY>
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 09:38:07 UTC