Re: [wsrp-wsia] [I#110] destroyEntity failure semantics

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

Would a fault message that explicitly started with the number of failures
(i.e. format => [Num] + ' ' + text) be an appropriate solution here?


                                                                                                                   
                      Rex Brooks                                                                                   
                      <rexb@starbourne.        To:       Gil Tayar <Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com>,                     
                      com>                      "'wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org'"                                 
                                                <wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org>                                   
                      10/15/2002 07:21         cc:                                                                 
                      AM                       Subject:  Re: [wsrp-wsia] [I#110] destroyEntity failure semantics   
                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                   



I agree a list of failed attempts is unnecessary, but the return of a
successful attempt is probably going to be mandatory eventually if it isn't
in the first version.

At 8:23 AM +0200 10/15/02, Gil Tayar wrote:
      Status: Active
      Topic: Interface
      Class: Technical
      Raised by: Andre Kramer
      Date Added: 15-Oct-2002
      Section: Interfaces/6.4
      Title: destroyEntity failure semantics
      Description:
      "If a fault message is generated in the processing of
      destroyEntities(), then the producers MUST NOT invalidate any of the
      supplied entityHandles." It would be better if destroy(handle[]) was
      the same as mulitple calls to
      destroy(handle). The producer should attempt to destroy all (even if
      one destroy "fails") and multiple destroys on the same handle should
      be safe.
      <RDT>This was a step forward from the returned list of successfully
      destroyed handles. Sounds like Andre would like the unstructured
      fault message to contain an array of failed destroys ... </RDT>
      <ak> No list need be returned. It should be safe to re-try deletes.
      Main thing is that producers attempt to delete all</ak>



--

Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com