[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue - 185 - Clarify relationship between fault name and type of fault data
The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version of the document entitled in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list - the next posting as a TC document will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this constant URL.
Status: received
Date added: 20 Jan
2005
Categories: Fault
handling
Date submitted: 19 January 2005
Submitter: Satish Thatte
Description: Per
the discussion in the TC call today, it seems that there are different
interpretations of allowable relationship between a fault name and the type of
fault data associated with that name. My interpretation has always been that a
fault is a “package” consisting of a QName and a specific type of data
“payload”. Using the same QName with different data types would amount to
“overloading” of a kind. But clearly, my interpretation is not the only possible
one and in any case this is not clearly stated one way or the other in the
specification, which it should be, because this is an issue of normative
constraints on the usage of fault names/data.
I therefore propose that we open this new issue, in order to discuss and clarify this ambiguity in the text of the specification.
Submitter's proposal: None so far.
Links:
Changes: 20 Jan 2005 - new issue
Tony
Tony
Fletcher Technical
Advisor
| ||
Phone:
|
+44 (0) 1473 729537 | |
Mobile:
|
+44
(0) 7801 948219 | |
Fax:
|
+44 (0) 870 7390077 | |
Web: |
||
Cohesions™ | ||
Business
transaction management software for application
coordination | ||
Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com | ||
Home: amfletcher@iee.org |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]