[ogsa-dmi-wg] Proposal on fault communication for the DTI

[Michel Drescher]

Mario,

though I didn't check it, I would expect the WSDL to be out of sync.

Last time I tested the source code section it didn't work even though  
I requested a repository. But that's a long time ago, and it might  
work now. On the other hand, I wonder whether this is a feature OGF  
should offer, as software development is certainly not the main focus  
of OGF - and versioning the files using the document area is good  
enough, I think.

Cheers,
Michel

On 6 Dec 2007, at 09:13, Mario Antonioletti wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
>> As opposed to the proposal document, I separated the definition of  
>> the dmi:Status element from the fault definition that would be  
>> conveyed in the new dmi:Detail section. The reason being for  
>> clarity in the specification that the usual, expected flow of DTI  
>> lifecycle would not require the use of faults at all, and that  
>> only unexpected (hopefully) rare occasions would need faults.  
>> Also, faults keep being collected and specified in one place,  
>> being section 5.3 in the current specification.
>
> Does all this mean that the WSDL on GridForge is now out of  
> alignment with the spec. Would it be worthwhile using the Source  
> Code section
> on Grid Forge to modify this? No idea how it works but it might allow
> distribution of the maintenance of the WSDL and Schema - thoughts?
>
> Mario
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> --+
> |Mario Antonioletti:EPCC,JCMB,The King's Buildings,Edinburgh EH9  
> 3JZ.   |
> |Tel:0131 650 5141|mario at epcc.ed.ac.uk|http://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/ 
> ~mario/ |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> --+

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-dmi-wg/attachments/20071206/27b6a873/attachment.bin