RE: [ws-rx] i0019 - a formal proposal

If the RMD has already acked the out-of-order messages (and the spec at this point doesn’t say it can’t or shouldn’t), and we then preclude the RMD from delivering them, then the final Ack is not accurate, which I thought was the original goal. Even if we leave it undefined, the RMD may choose not to deliver them, and the problem remains.

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:23 PM
To: Jacques Durand
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i0019 - a formal proposal - take 2

Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> wrote on 08/25/2005 02:10:04 PM:

> 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.

If we change it so that it says nothing about those messages instead,
as Anish and Chris are suggesting, would that be ok with you?
So, basically, the semantics of undelivered messages would be undefined by
removing the above paragraph.
thanks,
-Doug

ws-rx message