Re: [ws-tx] Issue 059 - Protocol event indications are notws-addressing faults

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Alastair Green wrote:

> Tom,
>
> I think you're referring to the resolution of issue 030 (use of [reply 
> endpoint] etc), not 052  which is rumbling along?

Yes I did not have access to the issues list when I sent that mail.

>
> Thoughts on this are contained in a previous post on issue 030:
>
>     
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/email/archives/200605/msg00011.html
>
> I do have some sympathy with your view from the standpoint of clarity, 
> optimal reflection of the layering, etc.
>
> Balancing that: this change will affect existing implementations and 
> therefore interop, and obviously requires changes to the schema/WSDL 
> as well as to the spec. The change will introduce no functional 
> improvement in the protocol.
>
> The resulting schema will presumably replicate some of the features of 
> a SOAP 1.2 fault element, which is pre-existing work that is currently 
> referenced.
>
> Also, I think this raises a design consistency problem. The "protocol 
> event indications" /are /sent as WS-Addressing faults in 
> WS-Coordination (i.e. they are sent as responses, using [relationship] 
> to a [reply endpoint] in accordance with WS-A Core 3.4), but they are 
> sent as plain requests i n WS-AT/BA.
>
> Would you propose that we map to SOAP fault in WS-C, but to PEI in 
> WS-AT/BA? 

Yes, soap fault for ws-c, and PEI for ws-at and ba.

WS addressing reply to and fault to semantics are also for application 
specific faults.

However, since these PEIs are first class messages, mapped to http 
request, they do not
"well fit" the ws addressing fault model.

Tom Rutt

> Or always to PEI? If you view the mode of targetting/delivery as 
> affecting the type of the element, then this is a pertinent question. 
> The current spec implicitly considers the mode to be orthogonal to the 
> type.
>
> Alastair
>
>
> Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
>
>>This is identified as WS-TX issue 059.
>>
>>Please ensure follow-ups have a subject line starting "Issue 059 -
>>Protocol event indications are not ws-addressing faults".
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] 
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:23 PM
>>To: ws-tx
>>Subject: [ws-tx] NEW ISSUE: Protocol event indications are not
>>ws-addressing faults
>>
>>Nature of Problem:
>>
>>With the resolution of Issue 52, the specifications (coord, at, ba) have
>>
>>two kinds of indicaitons:
>>
>>Faults (definined in ws coord) which map to ws-addressing fault model.
>>
>>"notifications" (from ws at, ba) which do not map to ws addressing 
>>faults, and which are treated as
>>first class "requests" from ws addressiing perspective.
>>
>>Mapping the second kind of indication to a soap fault, but not a ws 
>>addressing fault, will inevitably cause
>>confustion for implementers of this spec.
>>
>>Proposed solution:
>>
>>Instead of mapping the "notificaitons" to soap fault syntax, define a 
>>new schema type
>>{ProtocolEventIndication) which conveys the proper syntax for the 
>>contents of these protocol notifications.
>>
>>Have each individual protocolEventIndication be mapped to this new 
>>syntax, as a proper ws addressing request message.
>>
>>  
>>


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