Re: [ebxml-msg]

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Changing the name makes sense but won't there be a concern for existing
implementations?  Of course, we are already doing much more violence to
DeliverySemantics, so why worry here?

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com> on 11/06/2001 12:47:43 PM

Please respond to Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>

To:    Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:    david@drummondgroup.com, arvola@tibco.com,
       ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:    Re: [ebxml-msg]



   Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 12:13:26 -0500
   From: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>

   If we change TimeToLive to an interval, we also need to add the time the
   message was originally sent to the header if it isn't there already.

It seems to me that having it as an absolute time was the right
decision; it's just that the name is misleading.  What about changing
the name to ExpirationTime or something?  (I don't think it's more
jarring to change the name than to change the meaning of the value.)

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>