+1 .. let's avoid creating a parallel to OM even for the restricted case of faults.
Sanjiva. On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 09:15 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > +1 to "merge that structure with Steve has defined to avoid duplication" > > thanks, > dims > > On 1/3/06, Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I think Steve started some time back on implementing faults for Axis2. > > And I think its not completed and integrated. Shall we remove that > > code from this release also, as its not being used ? I have few other > > questions on impl deatails as well. > > > > 1. Why is the design completely stands away alone from OM. The impl > > I did was an extension OM. IMO, if we create a separate object > > model for faults, we will have two object models for faults. I > > hope everyone agrees that we need to have the OM structure. So > > if we can merge that structure with Steve has defined, we can > > avoid duplication. > > 2. The AbstractFaultCode class maintains an instance of its > > subclass FaultSubCode and some references to that. I don't think > > its a good decision, unless you have a very good reason. > > > > - -- Chinthaka > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) > > > > iD8DBQFDuhesjON2uBzUhh8RAl7AAJ49GJewRObStojGipbzMU4p6V3ZDACfc3V8 > > Fz0Yn1fQugxOY0dAFuRPu2Y= > > =mBUO > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
