Re: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140

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

Ah - ok.  Well, unfortunately there
isn't anything the spec can/should say.  If the endpoint that sent
the MakeConnection used some query mechanism that the receiver of the MakeConnection
didn't support then it can do several things - fault back up to the app,
retry with a different query mechanism, others....   There isn't just
one single thing it can do.  Its kind of like asking "what should
an RMS do when it sends a CreateSequence that is rejected?"  
Its really an impl choice.
As for the receiver of the MakeConnection
- there is nothing it should do except return the fault.  It has no
impact on any current Sequences/messages in the queue.
I'm ok with leaving it as is.
-Doug

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>

07/27/2006 03:03 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140

If I understand it correctly, Bob is uncomfortable
with the table saying 
'unspecified' for both 'Action upon generation' and 'Action upon receipt'.

-Anish
--

Doug Davis wrote:
> 
> I don't understand what is not clear with that fault.
> -Doug
> 
> 
> 
> *"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>*
> 
> 07/27/2006 01:10 PM
> 
>                  
> To
>                  "Bob
Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>, "[WS-RX]"
> <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>                  
> Subject
>                  RE:
[ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
> 
> 
>                  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Hi Bob/Anish, thanks for producing the proposal.
>  
> Can the proponents of the MakeConnection solution (or any body else
for 
> that matter) suggest text for elucidating the Unsupported Selection
fault?
>  
> - Sanj
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Bob Freund-Hitachi [mailto:bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com]
*
> Sent:* Thursday, Jul 27, 2006 2:59 AM*
> To:* [WS-RX]*
> Subject:* [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
> 
> Anish has been kind enough to prepare the attached draft proposal
to 
> address issue 140.
>  
> While preparing this draft, some additional points were raised which
we 
> enumerate below:
>  
> Sequence Terminated Fault:
> There is no text that details under what conditions a sequence 
> terminated fault might be raised other than mention of a vague “protocol
> error”.
> One way to address this is to list some or all of the conditions in
> section 4, however it is more concise to represent these in the state
> tables of appendix D were normative.
>  
> Unsupported Selection
> This fault description deserves elucidation
>  
> Thanks
> -bob