[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 008 - WS-C: Remove fault 4.6 AlreadyRegistered
Max, if that's the only reason for the fault, then it should be in the WS-AT specification IMO. Mark. Peter Furniss wrote: >I'm forwarding this back to the list - for some reason it doesn't seem >to have >been propagated by ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org or copied to the archive. > >Another message from Max on 013 suffered the same fate, but that is >copied in full >in Sazi's response to it (he was also on the cc: list) > >There was at least one message, from Rich Salz, that also suffered this >way. >Are there others ? > >Peter > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Max Feingold [mailto:Max.Feingold@microsoft.com] >>Sent: 15 December 2005 00:57 >>To: Peter Furniss; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 008 - WS-C: Remove fault 4.6 >>AlreadyRegistered >> >> >>I should make one clarification here... >> >>My understanding of the AlreadyRegistered fault is that it is >>intended to be used for the WS-AT completion protocol, to >>signal to a registrant that another participant has already >>claimed the completion participant role. >> >>While this might argue for moving the fault definition to >>WS-AT, I don't think that we should remove the fault entirely. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@choreology.com] >>Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 9:54 AM >>To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject: [ws-tx] Issue 008 - WS-C: Remove fault 4.6 AlreadyRegistered >> >>This is hereby declared to be ws-tx Issue 008. >> >>Please follow-up to this message or ensure the subject line >>starts Issue 008 - (ignoring Re:, [ws-tx] etc) >> >>The Related Issues list has been updated to show the issue numbers. >> >>Issue name -- WS-C: Remove fault 4.6 AlreadyRegistered >> >>Owner: Alastair Green [mailto:alastair.green@choreology.com] >> >>Target document and draft: >> >>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-Coo >> >> >rdination- > > >>2005-11-22.pdf >> >>Section and PDF line number: >> >>Section 4.6 "Already Registered", ll. 460-468 >> >> >>Issue type: >> >>Design >> >> >>Related issues: >> >>Issue 003 - WS-C: Appropriate categories of fault >>Issue 014 - WS-C: EPR equality comparison should not be relied upon >> >> >>Issue Description: >> >>AlreadyRegistered fault is redundant if participant registration is >>treated as retriable. >> >> >>Issue Details: >> >>[This issue stems from Choreology Contribution issues TX-19 >>and TX-20.] >> >>The fault AlreadyRegistered is inappropriate for a message-based >>protocol connecting loosely-coupled and >>potentially administratively-independent execution entities, >>communicating over unreliable transports. >> >>The current fault preamble (ll. 461-2) reads: >> >>"This fault is sent to a participant if the coordinator >>detects that the >> >>participant attempted to register for >>the same protocol of the same activity more than once." >> >>If related issue "WS-AT/WS-C: Make Register/RegisterResponse >>retriable" >>is resolved by agreeing to make the Register/RegisterResponse >>exchange >>retriable, then this issue should be resolved as proposed below. >> >> >>Proposed Resolution: >> >>Remove ll. 460-468 of the specification. >>Remove l. 99 of the schema document. >> >> >> >> > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]