OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [wsrm] Jacques proposal for Respond primitive uploaded

 Latest draft has the following lines (955-960)  in section 4.5 which I think is inappropriate:
 See the mail I sent yesterday. This needs to be corrected.

When the Response RM-Reply Pattern is in use and
the message cannot be delivered to the Consumer, the underlying protocol response
MUST contain a SOAP Fault (in the SOAP Body) in addition to the appropriate RM
Fault (in the SOAP Header).
The sending RMP and producer expect either a
complete response or a SOAP Fault when using the Response RM-Reply Pattern and
this requirement satisfies those expectations.

 Mail I sent yesterday on this topic:

 Is the above comment specific to Duplicate Elimination case or a generic failure (to deliver) case?
 If former, then there is NO RM fault for Duplicate messages. So the above should be better
 qualified as "in addition to the RM Fault if exists one".

 If it is the latter, why do we need to send *both* RM fault and SOAP Fault. The Sending RMP
 will convert/translate a RM Fault either as a SOAP Exception or a API specific exception.
 So we don't need both.

 If we have to say SOAP Fault is sent, don't we need better sub-codes for interoperability?


Tom Rutt wrote:
I just uploaded Jacques proposal for a Respond Primitive as editing draft 1.01J.

This proposal does not address the most recent concerns on the mailing list, and is not yet agreed.

The pdf with diff from editing draft 1.01I is at:

The open office source is at:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]