[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Fw: [ws-tx] Issue 030 - consolidated refinement of Proposal 2
Ian Robinson wrote: > > >There has been a lot of discussion and some good comments suggesting >refinement of "Proposal 2" for issue 30. Specifically: > Alastair's point that the WS-C spec defines the Coodination faults as > "reply messages" but the WS-AT spec defines AT faults as "notification > messages". The refined proposal clarifies that the specific messages > exchange patterns apply to the protocol rather than to individual > messages and that protocol fault messages are constructed according to > the rules of the protocol in which they are used. > Bob's objection to the use of phrases like ' "one way" pattern as > defined in WS-Addressing '. The proposal replaces this with ' The > protocols defined in WS-AtomicTransaction use a "one way" message > exchange pattern consisting of a sequence of notification messages > between a Coordinator and a Participant. ' > Joe's observation of the inconsistency in specificity between references > to WS-A from Coordination on the one hand and AT on the other. These are > now uniformly precise. Also the proposed text now refer to the abstract > message addressing properties rather than to soap header elements. > >Max and I have updated our proposal to address these concerns. > > I am confused by the proposal. Both the proposal for ws-coor and ws-at include a beginning section about faults include text regarding soap faults. Are some of the "message types" defined in these specs going to be mapped onto soap fault messages?. I believe strongly that any message which is mapped onto a soap fault should be treated as a ws-addressing fault, and should use the ws-addressing replyTo address and have a relatesTo in its header. Is that the intent of this proposal? Tom Rutt >(See attached file: Issue30_Proposal_2_WSBA.doc)(See attached file: >Issue30_Proposal_2_WSAT_updated.doc)(See attached file: >Issue30_Proposal_WSCOOR_updated.doc) > >In accrodance with the decision of the TC on the last telecon, the text >remains silent on the handling of non-TX fault messages. > >We have been discussing this issue for a month now, and we have other work >queued up. Could I suggest that any further refinements or >counter-proposals be written in terms of concrete spec language that the TC >would be able to vote upon on the next telecon. > > >Regards, >Ian > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]