W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2004

Re: Comments - WSDL 2.0 Message Exchange Patterns

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:08:11 -0700
Message-Id: <BF0B0C18-BFB7-11D8-8A84-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
To: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>

On Jun 16, 2004, at 8:49 AM, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> I'd like to take the latter suggestion as an editorial, if that suits
> others.  It means fewer changes, and qualifies as editorial, I think.

Fine by me.

>> * Section 2 uses "generation" in reference to Faults, which seems to
>> have a different meaning than in SOAP. When A SOAP Fault is generated,
>> it is not necessarily transmitted on the wire; here, the implication
>> seems to be that it is. Suggest using "Fault transmission," "Fault
>> delivery," or "Fault destination" throughout instead. This would make
> Err.  Not fault destination.  "Transmission" seems sorta okay.  It's
> really about generation, though, and the *attempt* to transmit, whereas
> "transmission" implies that it actually gets successfully sent.
> The rulesets specify: when faults may occur, how the destination for 
> the
> fault is chosen (replace a message, return the fault to the source of 
> the
> message that triggered it).  Fault creation and targeting ruleset?
> Cumbersome.

Hmm. Anything but "generation." Does "transmission", when used in a 
description context, really imply success?

>> the first sentences in the section something like: "WSDL patterns
>> specify the destination and transmission of any Faults generated in a
>> message exchange using standard rules.
> Awkward.  There's an implication that external rules govern the
> generation.  Which may be true in the sense that they govern what 
> *causes*
> a fault, but is not true in the sense that faults may only "occur" at
> certain points in any given exchange (a fault is never the first 
> message
> in an exchange, as an example).

Fault occurrence? Instantiation?

>> * Can the destination or occurrence of a Fault be overridden
>> dynamically?
> The specification is silent on this issue.
> Since it is not forbidden, it would be trivial to add a 
> fault-to-address
> feature/property, and state in the specification of the feature that 
> the
> property MAY (if it is optional) or MUST (if it is required) be the 
> target
> for faults triggered by the message.
>> E.g., can I specify a SOAP header that says "send any
>> faults over there" or "keep that fault to yourself"?) If so, the
>> mechanisms in section 2 should be couched as "Default Fault Generation
>> Rules," or "Default Fault Transmission Rules", with appropriate
>> explanatory text, if the previous suggestion is accepted.
> Does "default" carry the implication that they are used unless 
> something
> else is specified?  I'm concerned that the word would confuse readers.
> Would it work to mention that features or bindings might override the
> ruleset in some fashion?

Sounds promising.


Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 13:08:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:41 UTC