[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] [I#110] destroyEntity failure semantics
Would a fault message that explicitly started with the number of failures (i.e. format => [Num] + ' ' + text) be an appropriate solution here? Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne. To: Gil Tayar <Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com>, com> "'wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org'" <wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org> 10/15/2002 07:21 cc: AM Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] [I#110] destroyEntity failure semantics 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC