[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] ebBP 3/15/2005: Comments re: AnyProtocolFailure Update(wd 10)
Dale, I understand your comments. Therefore we need to make some decisions. We currently these states defined: * ProtocolSuccess * AnyProtocolFailure * RequestReceiptFailure * RequestAcceptanceFailure * ResponseReceiptFailure * ResponseAcceptanceFailure * SignalTimeout * ResponseTimeout * BusinessSuccess (isPositiveResponse=true or no isPositiveResponse attribute) * BusinessFailure(isPositiveResponse=false) * Success (both protocol and business success) * Failure (AnyProtocolFailure or BusinessFailure) We have a generic Failure (see above). I would think that we could have a generic Failure and not be able to determine if it was AnyProtocolFailure or Business Success (but the parties know as they have additional information in an agreement). However, in order to support the condition BOTH a Business and technical failure occur, seems logical that Failure is an 'and.' Otherwise we live with 'and/or' and let it be defined by the parties. I think the former is clearer but that is just me. We'll discuss today. Comments welcome. Thanks. >Moberg: Wouldn't we say that success has to be success on all fronts (so it is >"conjunction" of all success flavors) but that a general failure would >be a disjunction of the specific forms of failure (that is, Failure is >either ProtocolFailure and/or BusinessFailure and/or ...). Anyway that >seems plausible to me. > > >....[snippet] >Isn't Failure actually an AnyProtocolFailure and Business Failure >combined? This would be consistent with Success which is a Technical >and Business Success? Trying to ensure correction of any typos or >copy-paste errors (Section 4.8.3). >======================================================================== >Please note, I am trying to correct if needed a consistency question >between "Success" and "Failure" enumerated business transaction state on >the condition guard. I believe all other questions raised during these >interchanges have been answered. Thanks. Comments, as always, welcome. [end-snippet] >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]