Re: [ws-caf] [Bug 52] New: Are the failure properties general enough?

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

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: <bugzilla-daemon@arjuna.com>; <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.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: bugzilla-daemon@arjuna.com [mailto:bugzilla-daemon@arjuna.com]
> > Sent: 29 January 2004 13:16
> > To: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> > 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: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> >         ReportedBy: mark.little@arjuna.com
> >          QAContact: mark.little@arjuna.com
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>