On Apr 24, Heiko Ludwig modulated:
The ContinuingFaultType is the specific WS-Agreement fault that we defined. I don't know anymore the rationale why it was called that name, but we might want to have a sepate fault type.
Karl, do you rember the semantics of this name?
Heiko
Yes, I think it is obsolete. It had to do with distinguishing continuing or terminal faults in negotiations, i.e. continuing fault is like an E_BUSY etc, temorary failure which cancels an operation while terminal fault would be like a permanent fault on the negotiation (web resource) meaning the resource is no longer useful. I think this is much less important with the current offer/accept handshake, i.e. there is no ongoing conversation of counter-offers that you might or might not want to terminate. For Agreement resources, I think we can leave it up to the individual fault types to define their semantics, and not bother with this. For example, it is going to be underlying WS-Addressing faults that indicate your agreement resource EPR is invalid, right? We don't even specify the important faults. karl -- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@univa.com