Re: Fw: [ws-tx] Issue 030 - consolidated refinement of Proposal 2

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Ian Robinson wrote:

>
>
>There has been a lot of discussion and some good comments suggesting
>refinement of "Proposal 2" for issue 30. Specifically:
>   Alastair's point that the WS-C spec defines the Coodination faults as
>   "reply messages" but the WS-AT spec defines AT faults as "notification
>   messages". The refined proposal clarifies that the specific messages
>   exchange patterns apply to the protocol rather than to individual
>   messages and that protocol fault messages are constructed according to
>   the rules of the protocol in which they are used.
>   Bob's objection to the use of phrases like ' "one way" pattern as
>   defined in WS-Addressing '. The proposal replaces this with ' The
>   protocols defined in WS-AtomicTransaction use a "one way" message
>   exchange pattern consisting of a sequence of notification messages
>   between a Coordinator and a Participant. '
>   Joe's observation of the inconsistency in specificity between references
>   to WS-A from Coordination on the one hand and AT on the other. These are
>   now uniformly precise. Also the proposed text now refer to the abstract
>   message addressing properties rather than to soap header elements.
>
>Max and I have updated our proposal to address these concerns.
>  
>
I am confused by the proposal.

Both the proposal for ws-coor and ws-at include a beginning section 
about faults include text
regarding soap faults.  Are some of the "message types" defined in these 
specs going
to be mapped onto soap fault messages?.

I believe strongly that any message which is mapped onto a soap fault 
should be treated as a ws-addressing fault,
and should use the ws-addressing replyTo address and have a relatesTo in 
its header.

Is that the intent of this proposal?

Tom Rutt

>(See attached file: Issue30_Proposal_2_WSBA.doc)(See attached file:
>Issue30_Proposal_2_WSAT_updated.doc)(See attached file:
>Issue30_Proposal_WSCOOR_updated.doc)
>
>In accrodance with the decision of the TC on the last telecon, the text
>remains silent on the handling of non-TX fault messages.
>
>We have been discussing this issue for a month now, and we have other work
>queued up. Could I suggest that any further refinements or
>counter-proposals be written in terms of concrete spec language that the TC
>would be able to vote upon on the next telecon.
>
>
>Regards,
>Ian
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133