OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-tx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Issue 006 - WS-C: Remove fault 4.4. NoActivity


This is hereby declared to be ws-tx Issue 006.

Please follow-up to this message or ensure the subject line starts Issue
006 -(ignoring Re:, [ws-tx] etc)

The Related Issues list has been updated to show the issue numbers.

Issue name -- WS-C: Remove fault 4.4. NoActivity

Owner:  Alastair Green [mailto:alastair.green@choreology.com]

Protocol:  Coord

Artifact:  spec / schema

Draft:
 
 Coord spec working draft uploaded 2005-12-02

 WS-Coordination schema contributed by input authors, not yet uploaded
 to Working Drafts folder
 
Link to the document referenced:
 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15738/WS-Coordination-
2005-11-22.pdf

Section and PDF line number: Section 4.4 "No Activity", ll. 443-450

 
Issue type: Design
 
 
Related issues:
 
 Issue 003 - WS-C: Appropriate categories of fault
 
 
Issue Description:
 
NoActivity fault is not basic to all conceivable coordination
protocols.
 
 
Issue Details:
 
 [This issue stems from Choreology Contribution issue TX-19.]
 
Faults in WS-C should be divided into two categories: those which
apply to the process of context creation and
registration (or which apply to the misuse of the 
conversational channel 
created by registration), and those
which are basic faults available to all coordination protocols.
 
NoActivity is not truly basic or general to all coordination
protocols.

The preamble of this fault (l1. 444-445) states:
 
 "This fault is sent by the coordinator if the participant has been
 quiet for too long and is presumed to have
 ended."
 
Such a semantic is most unlikely to be useful for all coordination
protocols. Indeed, WS-AT and WS-BA use entirely different means to 
terminate the coordinator's relationship with a participant. They have 
no concept of a "divorce heuristic". A future coordination protocol 
that does have
such a concept should define its own
message to carry this semantic.
 
The Reason (l. 449) "The participant is not responding and is presumed 
 to have ended." shows the same defect.
 
 
Proposed Resolution:

Remove ll. 443-450 of the specification.
Remove l. 104 of the schema document.
 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]