RE: [wsrp] modifyRegistrationRequired fault

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

Since this is just a schema definition
of what flows on the wire, I don't see an advantage to introducing an intermediate
definition as it will never appear on the wire and does not factor out
any structural definitions.

Rich

Andre Kramer <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>

12/13/2004 09:27 AM

To	wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	RE: [wsrp] modifyRegistrationRequired fault

The case I was attempting to
make is that the modify registration fault is an "extension"
of a registration fault that can be recovered from. I understand that one
can view InvalidRegistrationFault more as commandment to never again use
the registration handle rather than a signal that a registration is, say,
temporarily unavailable (ctf InvalidHandle?). In this view both ModifyRegistration
and InvalidRegistrationFault could extend a base RegistationFault.
 
Regards,
Andre

---

From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 13 December 2004 14:10
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrp] modifyRegistrationRequired fault
 

I do not think the ModifyRegistrationRequired fault should extend InvalidRegistration
fault as their semantics are quire different (repair this registration
vs destroy this registration's artifacts). As to an expanded description
... sounds like a good idea, I kept the initial pass concise as this is
in keeping with the other definitions in the table, but am open to expansion
of this or other fault descriptions. We should be careful about what is
prescribed behavior, though, as not all Consumers will be portals with
administrators ... 

Rich

Andre Kramer <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>

12/10/2004 04:55 AM

To	wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	[wsrp] modifyRegistrationRequired fault

 

The draft spec does not seem to give much guidance on how to handle the new proposed fault? I would expect consumer processing for an end-user to abort on the fault (affected portlets are not rendered) and an admin to be notified to go and attempt a modifyRegistration operation interaction with the faulting producer (correct me if I'm wrong but Portal users may not even see the new modified registration until they log in again). This leads me to two questions:

Should example usage of the new fault be better described?

Should the fault type be declared to extend the 1.0 InvalidRegistrationFault (or a common base type be inserted)?

E.g.

<complexType name="ModifyRegistrationRequiredFault">

    <complexContent>

      <extension base="types:InvalidRegistrationFault">

        <sequence/>

      </extension>

    </complexContent>

  </complexType>

<element name="ModifyRegistrationRequired" type="types:ModifyRegistrationRequiredFault"/>

Regards,

Andre