[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] [Bug 52] New: Are the failure properties general enough?
Greg's up a mountain at the moment, but I'm sure he'll get back to you when he's able. However, in the interim, I *think* that you are right as to what the issue is meant to convey. This came up at the face-to-face in Boston and then later in Greg's example. This is obviously a discussion point that we should have, but as to what the final decision is and the impact on the specification, that's obviously not clear at this point. Mark. ---- Mark Little, Chief Architect, Transactions, Arjuna Technologies Ltd. www.arjuna.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> To: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 4:26 PM Subject: RE: [ws-caf] [Bug 52] New: Are the failure properties general enough? > I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is this arising from Greg's comment > in his session state example that FAIL_ONLY, FAIL don't have obvious > meaning in that case ? And thus, if the answer to this issue is "no", > that the whole of CompletionStatus should be dropped from WS-Context as > such ? > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > > Sent: 29 January 2004 13:16 > > To: email@example.com > > Subject: [ws-caf] [Bug 52] New: Are the failure properties > > general enough? > > > > > > http://cvs-mirror.mozilla.org/webtools/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52 > > > > Summary: Are the failure properties general enough? > > Product: WS-Context > > Version: 1.0 > > Platform: All > > OS/Version: All > > Status: NEW > > Severity: normal > > Priority: P2 > > Component: Model > > AssignedTo: firstname.lastname@example.org > > ReportedBy: email@example.com > > QAContact: firstname.lastname@example.org > > > > > > Are the failure properties sufficiently general a property of > > session-oriented > > activities to merit definition in the lowest levels of the stack? > > > > > > > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > > You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. > > >