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: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 030 - 2 proposed resolutions


Is there a reason why we can't combine some aspects of 1 and 2? 
Specifically, the concept of faults as terminal messages from option 2 
into option 1? At this point I don't see why the use of wsa:ReplyTo or 
wsa:From has any impact on how we treat fault messages: I think we've 
already agreed that we mean Application Messages That Convey Application 
Error/Fault Conditions and not the usual SOAP faults, which is why 
wsa:FaultTo probably doesn't make sense. But it seems that with that in 
mind, the classification of faults as terminal application 
messages/notifications can be done irrespective of whether we 
subsequently use wsa:ReplyTo or wsa:From.

I had to drop off the end of the last call, so maybe I missed something 
relevant?

Mark.
 

Ian Robinson wrote:
>
>
> Max and I have been working on some options for resolving issue 030 [1].
> There has been a lot of good discussion on this issue already; we have
> suggested 2 (different) concrete resolutions that we can discuss on the
> call.
> Proposal 1 is closer to the status quo; it retains the use of the
> wsa:ReplyTo MAP for non-terminal notifications but adds a requirement for
> terminal notifications to set wsa:ReplyTo to 'None'.
>
> Proposal 2 replaces wsa:ReplyTo with wsa:From to further emphasize that
> protocol message are never replies. This proposal also classifies WS-TX
> "faults" raised during the agreement protocols (e.g. 2PC) as terminal
> notification messages.
>
> Proposal 1 (Issue30_Propsal_1_WSAT.doc)   (See attached file:
> Issue30_Proposal_1__WSAT.doc)
>
>
> Proposal 2 (Issue30_Propsal_2_WSAT.doc)   (See attached file:
> Issue30_Proposal_2__WSAT.doc)
>
> For either of these proposals, we believe WS-Coordination simply needs to
> remove text that is already stated in WS-Addressing:
>
> (See attached file: Issue30_Proposal__WSCOOR.doc)
>
> [1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/issues/WSTransactionIssues.xml#i030
>
> Regards,
> Ian Robinson
> STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect
> IBM Hursley Lab, UK
> ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com


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