Re: [ws-caf] Issue 99

[Guy Pardon <guy@atomikos.com>]

Fine for me.

In addition, it would improve clarity if we had a complete sample session (begin of activity, propagation, termination etc) illustrated by concrete SOAP or just XML message examples (not just the abstract XSD).
This is probably too expensive to maintain in a draft spec, but the ultimate edition would be much clearer I think. I saw a text on WS-T that did the same thing and it fastens understanding and hence adoption a lot.
It doesn't have to be in the main text, it could be an appendix or so.

Guy


On maandag, mei 24, 2004, at 21:28 Europe/Brussels, Martin Chapman wrote:

> At the F2f I took on an action regarding issue 99:
> http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=99
>
> The issue is requesting a description of each field in a message.
> The action I took on was to look at other specs and determine if  any best practice is being followed.
>
> I have looked at ws security, ws reliability, ws-n, ws-rf, and ws remote portal and they all briefly describe each field/param of each message. Therefore I propose that in keeping with such practice, we accept issue 99 and request the editors to add such descriptive text.
>
> Comments anyone?
>
> Martin.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Martin Chapman                                 
> Consulting Member of Technical Staff           
> Oracle                                        
> P: +353 87 687 6654                           
> e: martin.chapman@oracle.com                   

Dr. Guy Pardon ( guy@atomikos.com )
Atomikos: Your Partner for Reliable eBusiness Coordination
http://www.atomikos.com/

The information in this email is confidential and only meant for the addressee(s). The content of this email is informal and will not be legally binding for Atomikos.