[cddlm] XSD consistency

[Steve Loughran]

Stuart Schaefer wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> Not sure what you mean by making major changes to the component model.
> It appears that you mean the deployment API.  All of the component model
> events derive from MUWS.
> 

yes, I meant deploy API

> Second, I would like components to use a simple fault model, so I did
> not include all of the elements of faults that you have done.  Also,
> reflecting Bryan's comments, I made the model a little simpler.  Do you
> really want the deployment API to transmit its own faults as derivatives
> of the component model?  Relaying, sure.  But that does not require
> anything other than WS-Notification support for forwarding of the cmp
> types.
> 
> Stuart

I'd like all faults to have a single base type so that we can hand them 
on without wrapping them in our own faults. Nor do I want to have to 
explicitly declare every type of fault that can be thrown, "the Java 
policy", as that is two brittle to change, and over verbose in the WSDL, 
as you can see from the declaration of wsn stuff


     <wsdl:operation name="GetCurrentMessage">
       <wsdl:input name="GetCurrentMessage"
         message="wsrf-nt:GetCurrentMessageRequest"/>
       <wsdl:output name="GetCurrentMessageResponse"
         message="wsrf-nt:GetCurrentMessageResponse"/>
       <wsdl:fault name="ResourceUnknownFault"
         message="wsrf-nt:ResourceUnknownFault"/>
       <wsdl:fault name="InvalidTopicExpressionFault"
         message="wsrf-nt:InvalidTopicExpressionFault"/>
       <wsdl:fault name="TopicNotSupportedFault"
         message="wsrf-nt:TopicNotSupportedFault"/>
       <wsdl:fault name="NoCurrentMessageOnTopicFault"
         message="wsrf-nt:NoCurrentMessageOnTopicFault"/>
     </wsdl:operation>


Moving stuff into component model means that if one component gets an 
http error code when talking to something down the wire, it can wrap it, 
send it back.

Language faults may want to go somewhere else.  Maybe we need a separate 
fault doc/schema. I'd be amenable to that.

I do want a common base fault class. It could be that my expectations 
are not aligned with what the WSRF people, want, but then I will observe 
that I am the author of much of Axis' fault class, about which there are 
whole articles written, albeit some by me

http://www.devx.com/ibm/Article/20250
http://webservices.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2003/10/28/sitefinder.html

I also sent a request to the OGSA mail list proposing the design and got 
no feedback back apart from "you raise some interesting design 
questions", which I think means that nobody on the mail list has been 
dealing with failure modes yet, or  the document was too hard to read.


NB, I've just made the changes to the XSD, will be offline for the next 
hour; you can move them back if you dont want them there.