[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i0019 - a formal proposal - take 4
Doug, A few smaller, potentially editorial questions: On 01/09/05 06:41, Doug Davis wrote: ... > In the case where the RM Destination wishes to discontinue use of a > sequence it may choose to 'close' the sequence itself. In cases where > the RM Destination wishes to generate a Fault but still allow RM >protocol > messages (for example, AckRequested) but not allow any new application > messages to be processed it may use the SequenceClosed Fault in place of >the > SequenceTerminated fault. Since the SequenceTerminated fault may > result in the state information about the sequence to be reclaimed, > use of the SequenceClosed fault will allow the RM Source to still > retrieve a final and accurate accounting of the state of the sequence. > > I find the above fairly difficult to parse. The choices I see for the RMD are to send a <SequenceAcknowledgement/> containing <Final/> or to issue a Sequence Closed fault. The first choice is not covered above. The second choice is covered but might be more clear without repeating text from elsewhere. How about: In the case where the RM Destination wishes to discontinue use of a sequence it may 'close' the sequence itself. Please see wsrm:Final above and the Sequence Closed fault below. > 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 and ExactlyOnce delivery assurance is being enforced) > > before they can be delivered to the RM Destination's application, the RM > > Destination MUST NOT deliver those messages. > > The above seems untestable and invisible on the wire. It also applies MUSTs to the RMD to AD interface which go much further than the rest of the WS-RM specification, potentially to the detriment of the DA ("almost perfect in-order with warnings" anyone?). A RMD implementation which delivers all messages to the AD but clearly identifies the existence of gaps should be allowed. I recommend deleting this paragraph. > The following exemplar defines the <wsrm:Closed> syntax: > > /wsrm:CloseSequenceResponse > I hope you mean <wsrm:CloseSequenceResponse> on the line above. thanx, doug
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]