[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] Possible omission?
Tony, Sorry for not posting on this earlier. These look like a few holes we can close. I'm adding your comments as an agenda item to the 7/8 telecon, to be discussed for consideration as either an add to CR002, or as a stand alone CR. Thanks, Tom Bellwood Phone: (512) 838-9957 (external); TL: 678/9957 (internal) Co-Chair, OASIS UDDI Specification TC "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> on 06/24/2003 01:46:27 AM STSM - Emerging Technologies IBM Corporation To: <email@example.com> cc: Subject: [uddi-spec] Possible omission? I was just re-reading the UDDI V3 spec, as one does from time to time, and I suspect I may have spotted an omission. Under 5.2.17 save_service we have: 126.96.36.199 Behavior: Each businessService passed MUST contain a businessKey value that corresponds to a registered businessEntity controlled by the same publisher who is making the save_service request. But there is no statement under any of the possible error codes indicating which error code should be thrown if the request does NOT contain a businessKey value. We know that an erroneous business key will result in E_invalidKeyPassed, but is that appropriate when the business key is missing from the request? Even so, it is probably the best choice of the ones available. I suggest we add the following sentence under E_invalidKeyPassed: "This also applies when a businessService element is passed without the required businessKey.". We will need to make a similar change to save_binding. While looking at this, I realised that the sentence I quoted above (the first sentence under 188.8.131.52) is slightly wrong, too. Shouldn't it be qualified with: "unless the serviceKey is specified and denotes an existing businessService entry in the repository."? In other words, we don't need the business key if we already know about the service? Sorry to be a pain. Tony Rogers firstname.lastname@example.org