[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] proposed wording for bullet in 4.5
I like the wording: When the Response RM-Reply Pattern is in use and the message cannot be delivered to the Consumer, a SOAP Fault MUST be generated in addition to the RM Fault. This takes duplicate elimination out of the scope of the statment, because it is not an RM fault, I am happy with Doug's suggestion. Jacques Durand wrote: > Rewording for 1.01: > - either solution is fine with me. > > Rewording lines 949-951 : > - while I understand the concern, "do not rely exclusively on SOAP > Faults" would suggest we > still rely a good deal on it even if not completely, > when in fact we do not rely at all in 99% of cases. > How about "only rely marginally on the SOAP Fault model..." instead? > I think the marginality is a value judgement. I think Doug's words are fine. Tom Rutt > Jacques > > > R-----Original Message----- > From: Doug Bunting [mailto:Doug.Bunting@sun.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 5:26 PM > To: wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [wsrm] proposed wording for bullet in 4.5 > > > During the call, our primary discussion began with the second to last > bullet in section 4.5. In the 1.1-1.02 draft (as shown in the footer), > sometimes called "1.01" and published 4 June 2004, this bullet appears at > lines 958 though 964. I believe these comments overlap Tom's suggestions > in his "Detailed Editorial Fixes for Sections 1 - 4 of ED 1.01" email > identified as for "Line 961 through 965". > > Please note that this section is entitled "Fault Codes for Reliable > Message > Failures". As such, it is specific to faulting. > > The text reads in 1.01: > > " > In case of a Response RM-Reply Pattern was required, and when the message > cannot > be delivered to the Consumer due to a failure in processing the RM > headers, > then a > SOAP Fault MUST be generated in addition to the RM-Reply that contains > the > RM Fault. > Because either a well-formed response or a SOAP Fault is expected on the > sending > side, then the response leg of the transaction MUST contain a SOAP > Fault in > the SOAP > Body when no business response is available. More details are given in > the HTTP > Binding section. > " > > Taking two of Mark Peel's suggestions (for line 958), one of Tom's > (removing "that contains the RM fault") and the clarity we found > during the > teleconference, the new bullet would read: > > " > When the Response RM-Reply Pattern is in use and the message cannot be > delivered to the Consumer, the underlying protocol response MUST > contain a > SOAP Fault (in the SOAP Body) in addition to the appropriate RM Fault (in > the SOAP Header). > The sending RMP and producer expect either a complete response or a SOAP > Fault when using the Response RM-Reply Pattern and this requirement > satisfies those expectations. > More details are given in the HTTP Binding section. > " > > We have not previously discussed the second or third sentences of this > draft. The above changes remove some duplicate text from the second > sentence, moves some into the first sentence and rewords the > remainder. If > the group prefers less editorial changes and limiting the updates to the > first sentence, I would suggest at least removing an extraneous "then" > from > the second. The new first sentence for this alternative would be: > > " > When the Response RM-Reply Pattern is in use and the message cannot > be delivered to the Consumer, a > SOAP Fault MUST be generated in addition to the RM Fault. > " > > > Separately, lines 949-951 include the following sentence: > > " > These protocol specific fault codes are > returned by the Receiving RMP within the response header element. > Reliable > Message Faults are > carried in the SOAP Header, and do not rely on the SOAP Fault model > for the > following reasons: > " > > I believe the "do not reply" phrase is somewhat historical since SOAP > Faults have been added and removed at various times. I suggest saying > "do > not reply exclusively" instead. The full sentence would then be: > > " > These protocol specific fault codes are > returned by the Receiving RMP within the response header element. > Reliable > Message Faults are > carried in the SOAP Header, and do not rely exclusively on the SOAP Fault > model for the following reasons: > " > > thanx, > doug > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php. > -- ---------------------------------------------------- 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]