ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i010 - a proposal
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:12:24 -0600
Jacques,
sorry for the delay. Yes
I left 'endpoint' in the definitions because they refer to "the"
message - implying what the sender/receiver is for any _one_ message sent.
I suppose I could change the text to make that clearer, something
like:
RM Source: For any one message
the endpoint that transmits the message.
I'm actually ok with using the term
'endpoint' when talking about one particular message exchange.
I'll fix the other two spots you pointed
out. New version of diffs is attached with all of these changes.
thanks
-Doug
Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
10/11/2005 05:34 PM
|
To
| Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [ws-rx] i010 - a proposal |
|
Doug:
the defs of RMD and RMS still
define them as "endpoints", which will maintain the confusion.
How about RMS as "implementation
of this specification supporting the Send and Transmit operations, usually
associated with the endpoint reference of a WS or of its client",
and RMD as "implementation of this specification supporting the Receive
and Deliver operations, usually associated with the endpoint reference
of a WS or of its client."
That would just "associate"
endpoints to the RMS/RMD (not excluding several endpoints, as well as not
excluding several addressable RM entities cooperating as a single RMS or
RMD).
Other places where "endpoint"
is too tightly associated with RMS or RMD:
Line 786-789: "This
fault is sent by either the RM Source or the RM Destination to indicate
that the
endpoint that generated the fault..."
mentions of endpoint to
be removed in this paragraph too.
Line 1302: (Appendix B4) "The
sending endpoint discovers that message number 2 was not received..."
Jacques
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 10:39 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i010 - a proposal
Per my AI for issue 10 here's what I came up with.
As much as I tried I really couldn't find a nice way to define RM Source
and RM Destination to make it clear that they were not limited to just
one endpoint or port. The closest I came was to add some text to the definitLinkion
of each that talked about how they were not limited to one endpoint blah
blah blah... But I thought that wouldn't be any better than
my original proposal because it would probably make people stop and think
too much about what we were trying to say. So, what I came up with
was this:
- remove the "endpoint" in places where we said "RM Source
endpoint" and "RM Destination endpoint" - as Jacques suggested
- tweak the "exactly two parties" sentence we talked about during
the f2f
- remove the tying of the RM Source/Destination to the WS-Addr headers
in the CreateSequence section
- add just *1* sentence expanding the scope of the RM Source and RM destination
concept in the RM Model section. I tried to keep this sentence short
so to not over-complicate things but still allow the freedom I was looking
for.
I've attached a pdf file of the spec with the change bars on. You
should find 9 changes. For easy finding they're on line #s: 80, 146,
213, 305, 313, 315, 435, 436, 475,
thanks
-Doug
issue10.pdf
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]