- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:12:26 +0100 (CET)
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Stuart,
simply adding another uriRef element named faultNode would be
easy, but I think you wouldn't get away with just saying "it's an
identifier of a node" and you'd be hunted by questions like:
Is that the address of the node? How about nodes with multiple
addresses, which is that?
Why is this not used anywhere else? Why cannot you target at a
node rather than at a role? What is the relationship between a
node and a role anyway?
I think that even though more complicated, modeling it as an
extension would be much cleaner because of avoiding all that node
stuff in the core.
Additionally, adding faultNode would IMHO _not_ be consistent
with faultActor because actor is a known and used and well
defined term, whereas node was so far only an abstract term.
For these reasons I would initially oppose to the WG discussing
this addition. But then, the discussion has already started as
this dialog. 8-)
Kind regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> Hi Jacek,
>
> I think I'd be inclined to add an optional faultNode element to the content
> model of SOAP Faults. That would be simple and consistent with the treatment
> of faultActor.
>
> I think defining it as an extension makes such a simple thing seem awfully
> complicated (but then I should talk ;-)).
>
> Regards
>
> Stuart
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 06:12:29 UTC