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: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:35:45 -0400
Yep!
-Doug
"Gilbert Pilz"
<Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
08/30/2005 07:37 PM
|
To
| <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [ws-rx] i0019 - a formal
proposal - take 2 |
|
As per the current draft, the
RMS has no way of knowing what the DA is between the RMD and Application
Destination. That's what i009 is all about.
- g
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 5:59 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i0019 - a formal proposal - take 2
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]