OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i0019 - a formal proposal - take 2



Jacques,
  I thougt that these updates:

On lines 735 and 746 make these faults non-terminating by removing:
 It is an unrecoverable error and terminates the Sequence.

Would do it.
thanks
-Doug




Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>

08/25/2005 01:16 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject
RE: [ws-rx] i0019 - a formal proposal - take 2





Doug:
few comments inline <JD>
 



From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent:
Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:55 AM
To:
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
[ws-rx] i0019 - a formal proposal - take 2

 

Based on feedback from Anish, Jacques and Chris here's an update.


All - I'd like to make it clear that I believe this proposal covers both issues i019 and i028. I think it covers i019 because it changes the semantics of the faults so that they don't terminate the sequence.

<JD> I am still not sure for the faults not terminating sequences (assumption we need for resolving fully i019) can you point me at where that would be taken care of? (maybe I missed the part)


There has been a lot of discussion, mainly between Jacques and Chris, concerning whether RM can/should/does support the AtMostOnce mode - this proposal DOES NOT address that issue at all.  Based on reading i019 I don't think it related and if there is some change needed to the spec related to AtMostOnce then I think a new issue should be opened.  I'm mentioning this because some people have indicated to me (off-line) that there might be some confusion as to whether or not the AtMostOnce discussion is part of this proposal - and it is not.

<JD> agree, we can separate these issues, at least for the sake of our resolution process.


thanks

-Doug



__________________




Using the pdf file at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/13493/WS-ReliableMessaging-v1.0-wd-01.pdf
here's a more formal proposal:


Change lines 340-347, the SeqAck syntax, to:

<wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement ...>

 <wsrm:Identifier ...> xs:anyURI </wsrm:Identifier>

 [ <wsrm:AcknowledgementRange ...

     Upper="xs:unsignedLong"

     Lower="xs:unsignedLong"/> +

   <wsrm:Final/> ?

 | <wsrm:Nack> xs:unsignedLong </wsrm:Nack> + ]

 ...

</wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement>


After line 378, add to the description of the SeqAck elements:
 /wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement/wsrm:Final
 This optional element, if present, indicates that the RM  

 Destination is not accepting new messages for the
 specified Sequence.  The RM Source can be assured that
 the ranges of messages acknowledged by this

 SequenceAcknowledgement header block will not change in the
 future.  Any attempt to deliver additional messages to this
 sequence MUST generate a SequenceClosed fault by the RM  

 Destination.  This element MUST be present when the Sequence
 is no longer accepting new message.

 Note: this element MUST NOT be used when sending a Nack, it
 can only be used when sending AcknowledgementRanges.


On lines 569 and 570 change:

 After an RM Source receives the <SequenceAcknowledgement>  

 acknowledging the complete range of messages in a Sequence, it

 sends a ...
to
 When the RM Source has completed its use of the Sequence, it
 sends a ...


To the end of that para, at the end of line 574, add:
 Note, under normal usage the RM source will complete its use of

 the sequence when all of the messages in the Sequence have been
 acknowledged.  However, the RM Source is free to Terminate
 or Close a Sequence at any time regardless of the acknowledgement
 state of the messages.


Change lines 581 and 582 from:
 This element is sent by an RM Source after it has received the  

 final <SequenceAcknowledgement> covering the full range of a Sequence.
to
 This element is sent by an RM Source to indicate it has completed

 its use of the Sequence, i.e. it will not attempt to send any

 additional application messages to the RM Destination.  RM protocol

 messages, e.g. AckRequested, Closed and Terminate, may still be sent.


After line 396, add a new section about closing a Sequence:
 3.6 Closing A Sequence
 There may be times during the use of an RM Sequence that the RM
 Source will wish to discontinue using a Sequence even if some of the
 messages have not been successfully delivered to the RM Destination.
 While the RM Source can send a TerminateSequence to the RM Destination,
 since this is a one-way message and due to the possibility of late
 arriving (or lost) messages and Acknowledgements, this would leave
 the RM Source unsure of the final ranges of messages that were
 successfully delivered to the RM Destination.


 To alleviate this, the RM Source can send a <wsrm:Close> element,
 in the body of a message, to the RM Destination to indicate that
 RM Destination MUST NOT accept any new application messages for the
 specified sequence.  Upon receipt of this message the RM Destination MUST
 send a SequenceAcknowledgement to the RM Source.  Note, this
 SequenceAcknowledgement MUST include the <wsrm:Final> element
 indicating that the RM Destination will not accept any new messages
 for this sequence.



 While the RM Destination MUST NOT accept any new application messages

 it MUST still accept and process RM protocol messages.  For example,

 it MUST accept and respond to AckRequested, Terminate as well as

 Close messages.  Note, subsequent Close messages have no effect on the
 state of the sequence.


 When a Sequence is closed and there are messages at the RM Destination
 that are waiting for lower-numbered messages to arrive (such as the
 case when InOrder delivery is being enforced) before they can be
 processed by the RM Destination's application, the RM Destination
 MUST NOT deliver those messages and a SequenceClosed fault MUST
 be generated for each one.

<JD> it is important to also say that it should not acknowledge them either.


 The following exemplar defines the Close syntax:
   <wsrm:Close wsrm:Identifier="xs:anyURI"/>


 /wsrm:Close
 This element is sent by an RM Source to indicate that the RM  

 Destination MUST NOT accept any new messages for this sequence.
 Any attempt to deliver additional messages to this sequence
 MUST generate a SequenceClosed fault by the RM Destination.


 /wsrm:Close@Identifier
 This required attribute contains an absolute URI conformant
 with RFC2396 that uniquely identifies the sequence.


 /wsrm:Close/{any}
 This is an extensibility mechanism to allow different (extensible)
 types of information, based on a schema, to be passed.
 
 
 /wsrm:Close@{any}
 This is an extensibility mechanism to allow additional attributes,  

 based on schemas, to be added to the element.


 A <wsrm:Closed> is sent in the body of a response message by  

 an RM Destination in response to receipt of a <wsrm:Close> request
 message.  It indicates that the RM Destination has closed the

 sequence.


 The following exemplar defines the <wsrm:Closed> syntax:


 /wsrm:Closed

 The element is sent in the body of a response message by  

 an RM Destination in response to receipt of a <wsrm:Close> request
 message.  It indicates that the RM Destination has closed the

 sequence.


 /wsrm:Closed/{any}

 This is an extensibility mechanism to allow different (extensible)
 types of information, based on a schema, to be passed.
 
 
 /wsrm:Closed@{any}
 This is an extensibility mechanism to allow additional attributes,  

 based on schemas, to be added to the element.


On lines 735 and 746 make these faults non-terminating by removing:
 It is an unrecoverable error and terminates the Sequence.
 
 
After line 760, add a new fault:
 4.8 Sequence Closed
 This fault is sent by an RM Destination to indicate that it has
 received a message for a sequence that is closed.

 Properties:
 [Code] Sender
 [Subcode] wsrm:SequenceClosed
 [Reason] The sequence is closed and can not accept new messages.
 [Detail] empty.


Add the proper XML to the schema and WSDL....


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  


Some notes:
I didn't include the Identifier on the Closed since its not needed.
The correlation back to the Seq can be done thru WS-A relates to.
Trying to follow Chris' lead and save space.


I didn't include anything about LastMessage because I consider its
demise or continued existence orthogonal to the Final and Close/Closed
discussion.  In other words, I believe that it can be killed or
saved regardless of whether the above text is adopted and should

therefore be considered a new issue.


I didn't include the parameters Chris mentioned in his note because,
to be honest, I didn't understand them  :-)
The source is sending a Close() because it wants to shutdown the
sequence regardless of its state.  Passing in the HiMsgNum or  

a Truncate flag shouldn't change the fact that the source wants
the sequence to shut down _now_.  What would the destination do with
this info?  Not closing down the sequence shouldn't be an option.
Sending back a final Ack on the Closed() will tell the source the  

final state of the sequence.


Didn't follow the part about Faults in the closed() either.  
Its way to late.  :-)


w.r.t. Stefan's comment on the call about InOrder - without seeing a
note from him I can only guess....but I added some text about
what to do when InOrder is in use.


thanks,
-Doug



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]