Re: [ebxml-bp] ebBP 3/15/2005: Comments re: AnyProtocolFailure Update(wd 10)

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Dale, I understand your comments. Therefore we need to make some 
decisions. We currently these states defined:

    * ProtocolSuccess
    * AnyProtocolFailure
    * RequestReceiptFailure
    * RequestAcceptanceFailure
    * ResponseReceiptFailure
    * ResponseAcceptanceFailure
    * SignalTimeout
    * ResponseTimeout
    * BusinessSuccess (isPositiveResponse=true or no isPositiveResponse
      attribute)
    * BusinessFailure(isPositiveResponse=false)
    * Success (both protocol and business success)
    * Failure (AnyProtocolFailure or BusinessFailure)

We have a generic Failure (see above). I would think that we could have 
a generic Failure and not be able to determine if it was 
AnyProtocolFailure or Business Success (but the parties know as they 
have additional information in an agreement).  However, in order to 
support the condition BOTH a Business and technical failure occur, seems 
logical that Failure is an 'and.' Otherwise we live with 'and/or' and 
let it be defined by the parties. I think the former is clearer but that 
is just me. We'll discuss today. Comments welcome. Thanks.

>Moberg: Wouldn't we say that success has to be success on all fronts (so it is
>"conjunction" of all success flavors) but that a general failure would
>be a disjunction of the specific forms of failure (that is, Failure is
>either ProtocolFailure and/or BusinessFailure and/or ...). Anyway that
>seems plausible to me.
>
>
>....[snippet]
>Isn't Failure actually an AnyProtocolFailure and Business Failure
>combined?  This would be consistent with Success which is a Technical
>and Business Success? Trying to ensure correction of any typos or
>copy-paste errors (Section 4.8.3).
>========================================================================
>Please note, I am trying to correct if needed a consistency question
>between "Success" and "Failure" enumerated business transaction state on
>the condition guard.  I believe all other questions raised during these
>interchanges have been answered. Thanks. Comments, as always, welcome. [end-snippet]
>