Re: Question on action item

Amelia A Lewis wrote:

>Dear Jacek,
>
>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:23:47 +0100
>Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>I was wondering about the case where a service providing an operation
>>that may result in faults is configured so that no faults are sent
>>(presumably for security reasons). I don't think that the WSDL of the
>>service should change because of this policy.
>>    
>>
>
>I understand this, but I don't think that this *can* or *should* be
>expressed in the fault ruleset.  The fault ruleset, IMO, ought to be
>unequivocal about the behavior expected of a service advertising a
>particular MEP.  I could see a security feature redefining that
>behavior.  But I can't see an "invisible" (not-advertised) feature
>allowing the service to discard faults.  The client of the service has a
>reasonable expectation of consistent behavior, based on advertised
>(included-in-WSDL) description.  For an operation defined using
>message-triggers-fault or fault-replaces-message, that expectation is
>that when a fault is generated, it is sent, unless there is no path to
>send it by.  If that behavior is advertised-as-changed by a required
>feature (security-through-/dev/null), I could see it, but that's layered
>on top of the ruleset, not built into it.
>
+1.

>
>All IMO, of course.  Was this part of the discussion when the
>'editorial' action item was created?  I don't think that it's editorial
>....
>
>Amy!
>  
>

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com