RE: Who Faulted (was RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, section 2 (l ong) )

Hi Jacek,

I'm not sure I agree. Independently we have the concepts of roles (or
actors) and nodes. Each can have identity and in a Web world I'd identities
to be expressed as URI's. At the SOAP level I don't think node identity is
"very dependent on the binding used" - a least not syntactically from the
pov of encoding an identifier for a node in a message - its 'just another'
URI.

But... I'm not going to push that we go there.

Good night,

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
> Sent: 30 January 2002 22:11
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Who Faulted (was RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, 
> section 2
> (long) )
> 
> 
>  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 17:31:05 UTC