ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:00:07 -0400
The phrase "implementation detail"
comes to mind :-) or perhaps "exercise left to the reader"
-Doug
"Bob Freund-Hitachi"
<bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
07/27/2006 03:54 PM
|
To
| Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue
140 |
|
Is there a spec you can reference?
Otherwise how is this to be
implemented?
Thanks
-bob
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:37 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
Didn't say it doesn't have consequences but they are not controlled by
the RM spec.
-Doug
"Bob Freund-Hitachi"
<bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
07/27/2006 03:18 PM
|
To
| Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
| "[WS-RX]" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| RE: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue
140 |
|
A fault without consequence might be best omitted or described as simply
informative and if so of what.
Thanks
-bob
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:23 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]