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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp message

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

Subject: RE: [wsrp] modifyRegistrationRequired fault

Title: RE: [wsrp] modifyRegistrationRequired fault

The test XML schema for 2.0 I uploaded to the "wsdl SC" (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/wsrp-webservice/download.php/10569/test_wsrp_v2_types_101204.xsd)

should test out type extension for both element and faults.


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Jacob [mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com]
Sent: 14 December 2004 12:40
To: Andre Kramer
Cc: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp] modifyRegistrationRequired fault

I see a value in such an approach.
We have dropped inheritance in our last wsdl due to stack problems dealing
with it.
We might want to explore inheritance in 2.0 wsdl (especially for faults,
but will be usefull for the other types, too).

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,

        Richard Jacob
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
WSRP Standardization Technical Lead
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com

             Andre Kramer                                                 
             citrix.com>                                                To
             12/14/2004 09:52                                           cc
                                       RE: [wsrp]                         
                                       modifyRegistrationRequired fault   

Depending on how the faults are mapped to exception classes it may allow an
implementation to handle any registration faults (using a common super
type, for example to abort the end user rendering of the faulty portlet)
and then special case particular extensions of the base registration fault
behavior (e.g. request an admin to submit a modifyRegistration request if
that is the concrete fault). But if no one else sees value in expressing
this communality then I will drop my suggestion.


From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 13 December 2004 21:46
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp] modifyRegistrationRequired fault

Since this is just a schema definition of what flows on the wire, I don't
see an advantage to introducing an intermediate definition as it will never
appear on the wire and does not factor out any structural definitions.


 Andre Kramer                                                             
 12/13/2004 09:27 AM                             wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
                                                 RE: [wsrp]               
                                                 d fault                  

The case I was attempting to make is that the modify registration fault is
an "extension" of a registration fault that can be recovered from. I
understand that one can view InvalidRegistrationFault more as commandment
to never again use the registration handle rather than a signal that a
registration is, say, temporarily unavailable (ctf InvalidHandle?). In this
view both ModifyRegistration and InvalidRegistrationFault could extend a
base RegistationFault.


From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 13 December 2004 14:10
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrp] modifyRegistrationRequired fault

I do not think the ModifyRegistrationRequired fault should extend
InvalidRegistration fault as their semantics are quire different (repair
this registration vs destroy this registration's artifacts). As to an
expanded description ... sounds like a good idea, I kept the initial pass
concise as this is in keeping with the other definitions in the table, but
am open to expansion of this or other fault descriptions. We should be
careful about what is prescribed behavior, though, as not all Consumers
will be portals with administrators ...


 Andre Kramer                                                             
 12/10/2004 04:55 AM                                                      
                                                   red fault              

The draft spec does not seem to give much guidance on how to handle the new
proposed fault? I would expect consumer processing for an end-user to abort
on the fault (affected portlets are not rendered) and an admin to be
notified to go and attempt a modifyRegistration operation interaction with
the faulting producer (correct me if I'm wrong but Portal users may not
even see the new modified registration until they log in again). This leads
me to two questions:

Should example usage of the new fault be better described?

Should the fault type be declared to extend the 1.0
InvalidRegistrationFault (or a common base type be inserted)?


<complexType name="ModifyRegistrationRequiredFault">


      <extension base="types:InvalidRegistrationFault">





<element name="ModifyRegistrationRequired" type



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