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

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

Dale and David,
If we can count on you to create a copy of the tree diagram this week, I 
can work on complimentary text in the technical specification.  Can we 
see this by Friday (just the two pictures)? The list of states is 
extracted at the bottom of this email. Thanks.

>I don't disagree with what you are saying and as a student enjoyed
>Prolog (except for the "cut" construct which was tricky sometimes) but I
>digress.
>
>Here is what I think the specification would benefit from
>
>Two "tree" diagrams, one with Failure at the Top that would show how
>Failure is specialized into a branch with BusinessFailure and a branch
>with AnyProtocolFailure. Under the AnyProtocolFailure, specialize that
>into various non-overlapping cases. 
>
>The second would have Success at the top, and show the distinct
>specializations so that distinct and overlapping forms would be
>described.
>(I think there are just 2 branches-- BusinessSuccess and
>ProtocolSuccess.)
>
>Next explain what to do with BPSS instances where conditionGuards are
>labeled with overlapping status values. 
>  
>
>>mm1: 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)
>>    
>>