[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [bt-spec] Issue 15 - Negative reply to BEGIN
>I
suppose one could use a qualifier on FAULT to point to the message / parameter
that caused the problem.
>>Since we can
potentially compound many different messages and not just BEGIN/CONTEXT, I would
suggest that we need some general mechanism that allows users to determine
exactly where the error occurred.
I
agree on having a general mechanism to determine where and what exactly happened
in case of faults with compound messages. Reference mechanism will be needed
especially for FAULTs in compound messages.
Also, do we describe what should happen if fault
occurs for 2nd out of 3-related-message group compound message? Should actions
of the whole group be reversed or only of the failed message? Compound
messages are processed in order. That means, if 2nd message fails, 3rd
message is never processed. However, what about the effects of the 1st
message? Should it be reversed? This is even difficult if an application
message is present in that group. Is the effect of compound message group
atomic? I think not. So, it seems failures in Compound Messages deserve a
paragraph or two in "Failure Recovery" section to address all such
questions.
sanjay
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC