Re: proposal for faults

Oh, yay!  We are now on the same page ....

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:44:08 +0600
Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> An interesting variation indeed, but I don't think putting the
> fault gen rules right in the user's face like that will be the
> right thing to do. 

Okay.  I thought that it might also help clarify, which is why I
included it.

> BTW, is it the case that only one fault rule is used by a given
> pattern? That is, do we not allow one part of a pattern to use
> FRM and another part MTF? I sure hope not ...

It is absolutely the case that faults are generated by a single ruleset
per pattern, not per message.  Mixing doesn't really make sense (the
rulesets are worded at the granularity of a pattern).

> So, it seems to me that the syntax proposal I made to Jeffrey
> is still acceptable, but the difference is that the value of
> operation/fault/@messageReference would resolve to any message
> ref in the pattern as there is nothing called a special fault 
> message reference in the pattern. Then, in combination with 
> the fault rule of the pattern, that unambigiously states what
> the fault is and who's sending it to who. 

Yes.

> Amy/Jeffrey: Do you guys agree? If so I will send a summarized
> proposal to try to get closure on this as I doubt everyone 
> followed this thread carefully. 

Yes.  I'll try to figure out how to word things to make certain that
other folks get the aha moment as they read, as you note in parts that I
snipped out.

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

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 16:53:47 UTC