Re: [wsrp-wsia] [I#110] destroyEntity failure semantics

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Title: Re: [wsrp-wsia] [I#110] destroyEntity failure semantic

I agree a list of failed attempts is unnecessary, but the return of a successful attempt is probably going to be mandatory eventually if it isn't in the first version.

At 8:23 AM +0200 10/15/02, Gil Tayar wrote:

> Status: Active
> Topic: Interface
> Class: Technical
> Raised by: Andre Kramer
> Date
> Added: 15-Oct-2002
> Section: Interfaces/6.4
> Title: destroyEntity failure semantics
> Description:
> "If a fault message is generated in the processing of
> destroyEntities(), then the producers MUST NOT invalidate any of the
> supplied entityHandles." It would be better if destroy(handle[])
> was the same as mulitple calls to
> destroy(handle). The producer should attempt to destroy all (even if
> one destroy "fails") and multiple destroys on the same
> handle should be safe.
> <RDT>This was a step forward from the returned list of
> successfully destroyed handles. Sounds like Andre would like the
> unstructured fault message to contain an array of failed destroys ...
> </RDT>
> <ak> No list need be returned. It should be safe to re-try
> deletes. Main thing is that producers attempt to delete
> all</ak>
>

-- 

Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com