W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Who Faulted (was RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, section 2 (long) )

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:11:18 +0100 (CET)
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201302308540.7210-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 exactly as you say, so far we have avoided identifying nodes and 
we were talking about roles only. I think adding addressing, 
which is very dependent on the binding used and on other things, 
to the core (next to faulting) would be a lot of hairy work. I 
suggest we don't go there. Or at least not for 1.2.
 Good night, 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Williams, Stuart wrote:

 > Hi Jacek,
 > Sure... it wasn't a heavy suggestion, but any such extension might benefit
 > from a common mechanism to denote what node faulted, rather than inventing
 > its own means of dropping the information in the fault detail. Doing it an
 > common way also means that the information is accessible to things that
 > don't understand the extension. It may also be the case that there is such a
 > mechanism... I haven't looked at the faulting parts of the spec recently.
 > Any not really pushing, was just wondering generally whether it was more
 > useful to know what node or what role faulted and in some cases you'd
 > probably want one, the other or both (although we have now completely
 > avoided identifying nodes (I think) by talking solely about roles).
 > Cheers,
 > Stuart
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 17:11:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:45 UTC