[graap-wg] [Fwd: WSAG Draft]

[Karl Czajkowski]

On Aug 02, Toshiyuki Nakata modulated:
...
> On the other hand, I remember someone (Karl?)pointing out that 
> we do not need this ContinuingFaultType at all?
> 
> 	<!-- ////// fault section -->
>   <xs:complexType name="ContinuingFaultType">
>     <xs:complexContent>
> 	<xs:extension base="wsrf-bf:BaseFaultType"/>
>     </xs:complexContent>
>   </xs:complexType>
>   <xs:element name="ContinuingFault" type="wsag:ContinuingFaultType"/> 
> 

Yes, I said we do not need this.  It was introduced when we had a
negotiation interface (offers and counter-offers) to distinguish
between a problem in one message versus a problem in the resource.  A
non-continuing fault indicated that the negotation resource was
effectively "dead" and no further offers would be accepted in the
context of that WS Resource by the party that generated the
non-continuing fault.  We have no such stateful negotiation in
WS-Agreement at this point, AND it seems a pretty sophisticated way to
model faults considering we've done so little to model them in every
other way...


karl

-- 
Karl Czajkowski
karlcz at univa.com