[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] A rewording of "Sequence termination on Fault" issue
OK Sanjay - go for your version of "Description" .
I think the "justification" part is precise enough as to show some of the effects- even if partial - that justify action.
I guess that also addresses Dave Chappell comment?
From: Patil, Sanjay
I agree with you in principle that our issue descriptions should be precise and accurate. However the danger with honing and sharpening an issue too much now (as opposed to later when we actually schedule the issue for TC discussion) is that the discussion may prematurely move in the direction of a particular solution.
I guess we are both agreeing that the current design of terminating the entire sequence upon encountering faults appears to be too broad sweeping and may not have taken into account all the consequences as well the other possible courses of action. Now we may scratch our heads and attempt to exhaustively list the problems with the current design or we could simply step back, log the high level problem area for now and review all the available options in the light of the actual problem to be solved later.
I agree that your issue text below correctly identifies the key problems with the current design (handling of messages in the abruptly terminated sequence on fault). However there may still be some other unclear aspects that we haven't yet thought about such as - whether the Source is allowed to reuse the identifier of the aborted sequence. Therefore I was suggesting to phrase the issue such that it describes the root cause of the problem rather than trying to list all the symptoms.
Having said that, I am fine with your proposed text with the hope that we will remember to visit the root cause at the time of actually discussing a solution. I guess that would be an AI for myself :-)