RE: are fault-replaces-message (FRM) and message-triggers-fault (MTF) equivalent

+1
IIUC:  FRM is one case of FRM, but MTF can't be expressed using the FRM  pattern.. 
 
Paul

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
 Sent: Sun 02/11/2003 10:07 
 To: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
 Cc: 
 Subject: are fault-replaces-message (FRM) and message-triggers-fault (MTF) equivalent
 
 


 We currently have two fault patterns:
 
 - FRM which can be used *after* the first message (since it doesn't
   make sense to start a MEP with a fault :-))
 - MTF which can be associated with the first message even, but of
   course the fault follows the message since its the occurrence
   of the mesasage which triggers the fault.
 
 Now, can we not just stick to MTF? FRM seems like just a special
 case when the fault is associated with the first message but
 defined with MTF. 
 
 With FRM, we'd specify a simple in-out scenario with faults
 as follows:
     <operation name='foo'>
         <input messageReference='A' body='x:e1'/>
         <output messageReference='B' body='x:e2'/>
         <outfault messageReference='B' details='f:f1'/>
         <outfault messageReference='B' details='f:f2'/>
     </operation>
 
 If we switch the in-out to use MTF instead, this would look like
 this:
     <operation name='foo'>
         <input messageReference='A' body='x:e1'/>
         <output messageReference='B' body='x:e2'/>
         <outfault messageReference='A' details='f:f1'/>
         <outfault messageReference='A' details='f:f2'/>
     </operation>
 
 The only difference is the value of outfault/@messageReference.
 
 I can't think of a case where an FRM scenario couldn't be expressed
 using MTF thus.
 
 So, shall we drop FRM and stick to MTF??
 
 Sanjiva.

Received on Monday, 3 November 2003 06:56:05 UTC