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

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

When InOrder DA is used the RMS knows
that all messages after the first gap were not delivered to the RMD's application
- even if they were ACKed.  So, getting an ACK+Final guarantees to
the RMS which messages were not just ACKed but delivered - and any messages
after the first gap can be recovered (e.g. resent in a new sequence if
it wants) without fear of them being processed twice by the RMD's app.
Actually, thinking about it more, perhaps some of the text should remain,
like:
  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.
Just  to ensure that the RMD
does not interpret the Close() as the trigger to let all messages after
the gap thru to the app.
thanks,
-Doug

"Giovanni Boschi" <gboschi@sonicsoftware.com>

08/25/2005 08:48 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Jacques Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
cc	<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [ws-rx] i0019 - a formal proposal - take 2

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.
 
G.

---

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