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
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:54:03 -0400
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]