RE: [ws-caf] Questions on WS-CAF

[Mark Little <Mark.Little@arjuna.com>]

> > 1) If the context is changed via the setContents operation of the
> Context
> > Manager Port and the identifying URI is changed, how should the reply
> > message
> > be formatted? Should this be relying on the correlation-id to
> associate
> > the
> > reply with the request, or should the original context URI be sent in
> the
> > SOAP
> > header to indicate that it is part of the same operation?

If by identifying URI you mean the value of context-identifier then at the
moment there's been the implicit assumption that this doesn't change once
created. This goes for whether the context is passed by reference or by
value.

> > 2) For all operations with the context service itself, should replies
> rely
> > solely on the correlation id to associate a reply with a response, or
> > should
> > they use a combination of this and the context identifier?
> >

Can you give an example of the specific interactions you mean?

> > 3) What should the sender address be set to in replies? i.e. should
> this
> > point
> > to the address that was called, or expanded to give details of the
> > operation
> > that is actually being called etc?

This is up to the specific implementation, but I don't see why it would
include details of the operation being called (that's receiver specific if
anything).

> >
> > 4) for the details in the Fault types that are returned, are there any
> > restrictions on what should be placed within the originator and error
> code
> > elements or is this entirely implementation specific?

Currently it's implementation specific at the level of WS-Context. Utilising
specifications, like WS-CF and WS-TXM may define specific fault types with
definite values.

Mark.

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

www.arjuna.com