1 / 12

Faults for NM-WG Services

Faults for NM-WG Services. Dan Gunter, LBNL GGF12, Brussels September 2004. Outline. Why we are talking about this What’s out there Suggestions for what we can do Administrativia. Background. NM-WG has been working on some Web Services for requesting and reporting network monitoring data

PamelaLan
Télécharger la présentation

Faults for NM-WG Services

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Faults for NM-WG Services Dan Gunter, LBNL GGF12, Brussels September 2004

  2. Outline • Why we are talking about this • What’s out there • Suggestions for what we can do • Administrativia GGF12, Brussels, Belgium

  3. Background • NM-WG has been working on some Web Services for requesting and reporting network monitoring data • “Request” schema • “Response” schema • This session is the first joint discussion of how to report failures GGF12, Brussels, Belgium

  4. Faults and Web Services • WSDL has a standard way to indicate faults, I.e. schemas for fault elements • SOAP (used to invoke the service) can distinguish between a “normal” service return value and a “fault” • Therefore the important task is to define a structure for the fault elements GGF12, Brussels, Belgium

  5. WS-RF Standards • OASIS TC on WS-RF has a document (by Steve Tuecke et. al.) on a general-purpose structure for faults: • wsrf-WS-BaseFaults-1.2-draft-02.pdf • We should use this! GGF12, Brussels, Belgium

  6. WS-RF Base Fault <BaseFault> <Timestamp>xsd:dateTime</Timestamp> <OriginatorReference> wsa:EndpointReferenceType </OriginatorReference> ? <ErrorCode dialect="anyURI">xsd:string</ErrorCode> ? <Description>xsd:string</Description> * <FaultCause>wsbf:BaseFault</FaultCause> * </BaseFault> e.g. POSIX GGF12, Brussels, Belgium

  7. Extending BaseFault • The specification requires that all services extend BaseFault in their WSDL • Same idea as extending a base Exception class to add user-defined Exception types • E.g.: <xsd:complexType name=“MyFaultType"> <xsd:complexContent> <xsd:extension base="wsbf:BaseFaultType"/> </xsd:complexContent> </xsd:complexType> GGF12, Brussels, Belgium

  8. BaseFault is just a framework • NM-WG still needs to agree on a list or taxonomy of fault types, along with whatever additional data they contain • Next slide(s) contain some suggestions to start discussion GGF12, Brussels, Belgium

  9. NM-WG Base Fault • Pick a namespace like http://ggf.org/NM-WG/2004/09/faults/ • Call it, e.g., “NMWGBaseFault” GGF12, Brussels, Belgium

  10. Dialects • Indicate how to interpret the <ErrorCode> element • Meant to encapsulate legacy error codes • Two seem of immediate use: • When querying a DB; SQL errors • URI = http://ggf.org/NM-WG/2004/09/faults/SQL/ • Use “SQLSTATE” codes? http://www.pitt.edu/AFShome/h/o/hoffman/public/html/oradoc/server.804/a58231/appd.htm • When running a network test; program errors • URI = http://ggf.org/NM-WG/2004/09/faults/POSIX/ • URI = http://ggf.org/NM-WG/2004/09/faults/{program}/ GGF12, Brussels, Belgium

  11. Some DAIS-WG faults • MessageNotValid • The message is not supported at all or it is not supported at this time • ResourceNotAvailable • The data resource that is the target of the message is not available. This could be that the data resource has been identified incorrectly or that is has stopped operating. • ConcurrentOperationsNotSupported • The service is already processing a message and concurrent operations are not supported GGF12, Brussels, Belgium

  12. Adminstrative Issues • Separate document for faults? • Pro: Can be worked on in parallel • Con: Needs to be kept in sync with requirements and specs • Who will take the time to write this up? • Don’t all raise your hands at once! GGF12, Brussels, Belgium

More Related