RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Is an implementation supporting a smaller max message number valid? [Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Max message number in policy]

["Abbie Barbir" <abbieb@nortel.com>]

I really do not see the problem here.

the size of long allows 9 quintillion, that is fine, agree with Chris,
most of us will die before the number is exahusted in a session.

However, an RM can choke on other factors, such as avilable buffers etc.
as opposed to the size limits.

At the end of the day, it should be able to state its limitations.

Abbie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:36 PM
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Is an implementation 
> supporting a smaller max message number valid? [Re: [ws-rx] 
> NEW ISSUE: Max message number in policy]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> 
> >It would take ~292,471,208.67 years to exhaust a sequence 
> that was only
> >the size of a long 
> >if you processed 1000 messages per second.
> >
> >
> Chris:
> 
> Most underlying technologies would choke on this so it is probably a 
> very good idea to let implementors declare their 
> implementations maximum 
> capacity and sub-scope it.  Consider that each message may 
> also have to 
> be stored in some form of persistent store too - this is an 
> implementers 
> nightmare if they had to have 3 trillion terrabytes available 
> for this 
> scenario. 
> 
> Duane
> 
> 
> 
>