sca-bindings message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: [NEW ISSUE]: Clarify optionality of SHOULD statement BJM60016
- From: Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com>
- To: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:37:57 +0100
Target: sca-jmsbinding-1.1-csd05.pdf
Description:
The JMS binding specification includes
statement BJM60001 with a SHOULD keyword:
For an SCA reference with a JMS binding and
unidirectional interface, when a request message is sent as part of a one-way
MEP, the SCA runtime SHOULD NOT set the JMSReplyTo destination
header in the JMS message that it creates, regardless of whether the JMS
binding has a response element with a destination
defined [BJM60001]
We need to clarify whether this is an
optional part of the JMS binding spec.
Proposal:
SHOULD was deliberately selected for
this statement when the JMS message exchange patterns was reviewed and
approved. The concern expressed at the time was that for some reason
of interoperation with an existing JMS application a one-way interaction
may need to include a JMSReplyTo destination. Although the interaction
is modelled as a one-way operation with no callback in SCA, a JMS application
might still expect the JMSReplyTo destination to be set to identify a 3rd-party
to which an additional message is to be sent. For that reason we
did not want to preclude the JMSReplyTo from being set by the SCA runtime
through other configuration/runtime action by making this statement a MUST.
However we wanted to promote the practice of a null JMSReplyTo for
one-way operations. The only way we could allow the flexibility without
a SHOULD is to make this statement non-normative by replacing it with something
like the following text:
The JMS specification provides the JMSReplyTo
header as the way for a JMS application to identify the destination on
which replies or other messages are to be placed that relate to the one
being sent. For one-way requests sent by SCA references with unidirectional
interfaces, the JMSReplyTo will not usually be set as no reply or other
related message is expected.
My expectation is that setting a non-null
JMSReplyTo for a one-way request with no callback to identify a third party
is not a common pattern, and not one we would want to encourage in an SOA
framework, so I would not object to a resolution which replaces the SHOULD
by a MUST, but I wanted to air the original discussion so we don't jump
to this conclusion.
---------------------------------
Simon Holdsworth
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]