Re: [ws-tx-comment] wsba:Invalid-State

[Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>]

Thats correct. To re-state slightly:
For outbound events, an Invalid State
cell means that this is not a valid state for the event to be produced.
For example, for Participants in BusinessAgreementWithCoordinationCompletion
(table B.3) the Canceling state is not a valid state for producing any
message other than Canceled or Fail. It is an implementation error to produce
any message that is invalid for a given state.

For inbound events, an InvalidState
cell means that the current state is not a valid state for the inbound
message. For example, for Participants in BusinessAgreementWithCoordinationCompletion
(table B.3)  the Canceling state is not a valid state for receiving
a Close message. There are no circumstances where a Participant in this
state should ever receive a Close message, indicating an implementation
error in the Coordinator which sent the message. This is a protocol violation
to which the receiving Participant must respond with a wscoor:InvalidState
message as defined in the WS-BA spec: Unexpected protocol messages MUST
result in a fault message as defined in the state tables. These faults
MUST use a standard fault code defined in WS‑Coordination [WS-COOR].

Regards,
Ian Robinson

Saleem Vighio <saleem.vighio@gmail.com>

09/07/2010 18:23

To	ws-tx-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	[ws-tx-comment] wsba:Invalid-State

Hi,

I have a question relating to the meaning of "wsba:Invalid-State"
in the state tables of BusinessAgreementWithCoordinationCompletion (Coordinator
and Participant views)  
protocol of "Web Services Business Activity (WS-BusinessActivity)
Version 1.2 OASIS 
Standard 2 February 2009".  

We interpret the  presence of wsba:Invalid-State in the state tables
with Outbound events
that the coordinator or participant are not supposed to send messages that
would lead
to such a state. In case of Inbound events, we understand the fact that
if a message
leading the coordinator or participant to an invalid state was sent to
them, then this
is an inconsistent situation in the protocol and can be understood as a
design flaw.

Could you, please, confirm whether this interpretation is correct?

Thank you in advance.

With regards,
Saleem

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature