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

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

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:34:03 +0100
Message-ID: <3C5939BB.C7416B00@crf.canon.fr>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
CC: "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
If your mechanism was part of the core spec, we would not need the outbound
<faultNodeIDRequest> header, would we? We would simply have the inbound
<faultNodeID>, right?

As Stuart, I'd hate to use headers for such a simple mechanism; but I understand
your concern...


Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> [...] The extension could be something like the following:
>  Non-fault messages contain a header
>       <ns:faultNodeIDRequest xmlns:ns="..."
>           env:role=".../next" env:mustUnderstand="true"? />
>  The contract of this header would be such that the receiving
> node, upon faulting (other than mustUnderstand, I think, but I'm
> not sure about this point because of the ordering of
> "understanding" a header and fulfilling its contract), would put
> in the fault message a header
>       <ns:faultNodeID xmlns:ns="...">uri</ns:faultNodeID>
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 07:35:35 UTC

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