RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE 5: JMS bindingType and atLeastOne intent overlaps with setting JMSDeliveryMode

["Peshev, Peter" <peter.peshev@sap.com>]

Hi Michael,

In today's binding call we discussed the issue, and there was an idea to
resolve that issue by the original proposal (dropping the
JMSDeliveryMode from the schema) and relying entirely on intents.
(Probably new intent for non-persistent messages)

It seems that you preferred earlier (as in the mail below) to keep the
binding configuration possibilities, and define the conflict as an
error.

Would you agree to such a suggestion -- drop the JMSDeliveryMode ?


Best Regards
Peter 



-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Rowley [mailto:mrowley@bea.com] 
Sent: Monday, 8. October 2007 18:22
To: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE 5: JMS bindingType and atLeastOne
intent overlaps with setting JMSDeliveryMode


I think this is a great issue.

I believe that the spec should say that if there is a conflict between a
required intent and the semantics associated with a binding
configuration, then it should be a deployment error.  In the case of the
JMS specification, specific potential conflicts, such as the one
described here, should be defined.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Johnson [mailto:eric@tibco.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:36 PM
To: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sca-bindings] ISSUE 5: JMS bindingType and atLeastOne intent
overlaps with setting JMSDeliveryMode

Logged as http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-5

Peshev, Peter wrote:
> TARGET:
> JMS Binding Specification Version 1.1, Working Draft  25 September
2007
>
>
> DESCRIPTION:
>
> The current bindingType of the jms is defined as :
>
> <bindingType type="binding.jms" alwaysProvides="jms"
> mayProvide="atLeastOnce atMostOnce ordered conversation"/>
>
> Not being at all policy expert and under the assumption that
> "mayProvide" is supposed to indicate - ("in some scenarios when the
> binding is used, this may be  provided, the assembler by supplying
> intents can influence the runtime behavior of the binding"), here is
the
> question :
>
> The semantics of atLeastOnce is actually having persistent messages
over
> a queue, and persistent messages + durable subscriptions over topic. 
> If that can be configured by intents by the assembler, doesn't it
> overlap with the setting of JMSDeliveryMode in the schema of the JMS
> binding ? Which one wins in case of conflict ?
>
>
> PROPOSED SOLUTION
>  Drop JMSDeliveryMode from the schema
>
>
>
>