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

["David Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

I never realized failure was so complicated?!?

: -)

DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
To: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
Cc: "Steve Capell" <steve.capell@redwahoo.com>; "ebXML BP"
<ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>; <Himagiri.Mukkamala@sybase.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] ebBP 3/15/2005: Comments re: AnyProtocolFailure
Update (wd 10)


> 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]
> >
>
>
>
>