[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i050 - Delivery assurances and the protocol
Marc While I agree that making the spec have no mention of DAs would simplify life, I personally think it would be counterproductive. The DAs are the fundamental reason for using the protocol. So I think keeping them is a good idea. I agree making a new deliverable would not help. I like option two: moving the delivery assurances to the policy spec. Paul Marc Goodner wrote: > > I’ve been considering i050 [1] and would like to hear what other > people in the TC are thinking about this. > > There were a couple of proposed directions in the issue, one was to > simply remove all references to delivery assurances and the other was > to move all mention of them to the policy spec. I would prefer not > pursuing the third option of a new deliverable. > > If we did pursue the first option, to remove all references, that > would seem to include removing the new parameter/assertion in the > policy spec as well. From my perspective this seems acceptable. It > would not cause any further complications in the spec to remove > mentions of the delivery assurances. The delivery assurances have > never been manifested in the protocol itself so there would be no > impact there. Furthermore we already seem to be spinning up new > issues, like the outstanding AI to close i024 [2], which are tied to > nailing down details of the delivery assurances. I am concerned that > exposing the delivery assurance is going to result in further > complication of the protocol in terms of new features to perform > operations around them such as i006 [3]. As others have noted exposing > these does seem to be a violation of general SOA principles [4] and I > suspect is why additional issues and protocol complications are > showing up around them. Finally it is not clear to me what people are > intending to do by exposing the delivery assurances. The only answers > to this question I have ever gotten relate to optimizations that in > terms of the additional complications to the protocol, in terms of use > and implementation, don’t seem worth it. What would we loose by > removing the delivery assurances from the spec? Would it make > implementing or using the protocol more difficult with or without them? > > If we are going to keep the delivery assurances I think the second > option makes the most sense, the definitions and all mentions of them > should be moved to the policy assertion spec. > > Regards, > > Marc g > > 1 i050 spec talks about delivery assurances but does not clearly > relate them to the protocol > > [http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14894/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i050] > > > 2 i024 WS-RX policies not manifested on the wire > > [http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14894/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i024] > > > 3 i006 Source based delivery QoS policy assertion > > [http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14894/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i006] > > > 4 Discussion point on SOA principles in relation to DA and i006 > > [http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200510/msg00100.html] > -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com Yahoo IM: paulfremantle VOIP: +44 844 986 2874 Cell/Mobile: +44 (0) 7740 199 729 Fax: +44 844 484 7459 paul@wso2.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]