Re: rationale for status quo for fault references?

The rationale given in [2] seems fine with me. "The pattern for this
operation uses the fault-replaces-message rule and here's a list of
faults that can replace this particular messsage". What is there not
to like?

+1 on getting closure before the next draft.

Roberto


Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Thanks Roberto for the pointers.
> 
> I wasn't at the Scottsdale F2F where this appears to have been
> discussed, but I don't see anything that supports this particular
> change in the summary minutes. This is a pretty major change to
> make without an explicit decision AFAIAC! Maybe there was further
> discussion later that I don't recall either.
> 
> I will make a proposal to reduce this back to one message. I'd
> like to get some closure on the fault ref stuff too for the next
> draft.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
> To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 6:45 AM
> Subject: Re: rationale for status quo for fault references?
> 
> 
> 
>>Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Can someone please point me to the discussion that lead to the
>>>status quo for fault refs [1] which has pointers to >= 1
>>>messages? WSDL 1.1 had a pointer to one and I'm curious why
>>>we decided make that be >= 1.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Sanjiva.
>>>
>>>[1] http://tinyurl.com/p3dg
>>>
>>
>>The change was made in version 1.46.2.3 of wsdl12.xml on 2/6/03 (see [1]
>>for the diff), then merged into the main branch on 3/5/03 (rev 1.55).
>>
>>Message [2] explains the rationale (look for "Why does a fault reference
>>refer to possibly multiple messages?").
>>
>>Roberto
>>
>>[1]
>>
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xml.diff?r1=1.46.2.2&r2=
> 1.46.2.3&only_with_tag=ComponentModelForMEPs&f=h
> 
>>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Feb/0064.html
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 14:23:55 UTC