From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006
1:49 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] issue 84
proposal for rms colums e-h
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.