Re: proposal for faults

Hmm,

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:36:21 +0600
Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 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.

Slightly different, actually.  Roberto suggests that
messageReference:detail is 1:N, I am suggesting that
messageReference:detail is N:1; what we have is 1:1 and the reality may
be N:N.  But I agree that we have sufficient capability in the XML
syntax to simply list them, and that it is clearer to do so using the
1:1 syntax than to introduce either form of one to many, much less many
to many.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 14:41:35 UTC