RE: [ws-rx] issue 84 proposal for rms colums e-h

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

hmmm, does the spec say that the fault
can be sent w/o some RMS initiated action?
-Doug


"Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
wrote on 01/19/2006 04:10:04 PM:

> One reason is that it is written that the fault is in response to
> the receipt of a message.  If the fault is NOT as a response
to an 
> RMS initiated message and it is simply received by the RMS, what is
it to do?
> Our readers would prefer that an explicit action
(rather than an 
> implicit understanding) would clarify the situation.
> -bob
>  
> 
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:56 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] issue 84 proposal for rms colums e-h
>  
> 
> Bob, 
>   the fault says: 
> This fault is sent by an RM Destination to indicate that the 
> specified sequence has been closed. This fault 
> MUST be generated when an RM Destination is asked to receive a 
> message for a sequence that is 
> closed. 
> 
> repeating... "to indicate that the specified sequence has been
> closed".  Why would 
> adding "This fault when received by the RMS indicates that the
> sequence has been closed by the RMD" 
> make this more clear?  What assumption could the RMS make aside
from
> "the sequence has been closed"? 
> I'm not necessarily against adding your text I just don't see how
it
> helps to basically 
> repeat the same thing twice. 
> -Doug 
> 
> 
> "Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
wrote on 
> 01/19/2006 03:41:01 PM:
> 
> > I feel that WD07 lines 759-761 describes under what conditions
> > Sequence Closed is sent by the RMD, not what actions must be
taken 
> > by RMS if it is received when RMS believes that the sequence
may 
> notbe closed. 
> > Proposal: 
> > Add following text after line 761: (ref WD07) 
> > This fault when received by the RMS indicates that the sequence
has 
> > been closed by the RMD.