Re: proposal for faults from Sanjiva Weerawarana on 2003-10-01 (www-ws-desc@w3.org from October 2003)

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:36:21 +0600
To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <05e201c3884a$ef7cd940$72545ecb@lankabook2>

Hi Amy,

> Should we consider the case in which a fault may associate with several
> messages?  There is no such case in the current patterns set, because
> all use fault-replaces-message and have zero or one replaceable
> messages.  In message-triggers-fault, two messages in a pattern means
> two possible references.  Hypothetical patterns with
> message-replaces-fault and number of messages > 2 would have the same
> issue.  Allow a list of ncname in @messageReference or just ask users to
> specify multiply?  I think it is probably more straightforward to have a
> single ncname.

Yep- this is the same issue Roberto brought up .. I think the
simplicity of single NCName outweighs the flexibility of the
other option.

Sanjiva.

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 14:37:45 UTC