Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
Eran Chinthaka wrote:
6. About faults, yes I also agree with you for some extent. When Deepal
initially put that we had some discussions on that.
"Why there is a separate flow to handle the Faults?"
With my understanding, the handers to be invoked when there is a fault,
could be different form the handlers that could be invoked when there is
no fault.
(Going by the definition, a flow is a collection of phases and a phase
is a collection of handlers). Now it is questionable if it is really
necessary to have different handlers for fault path or the same set of
handlers could deal with both fault cases and non fault cases.
It is necessary .. we already have scenarios where the security policy for
faults is different from normal messages.
On the topic of operation level flows- again we already have cases where
people are setting different policies on a per-operation basis and, in
some cases, only for the input of a certain operation. The handler chain
needs to be available locally at each level in order to make it work right.
SAnjiva.
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Director; Open Source Initiative; http://www.opensource.org/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
