- 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>
Stuart,
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)
http://www.systinet.com/
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