[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] AS need for ordered delivery?
I find that statement confusing. The AS/RMS is the client. It doesn't really matter whether it is running on a phone, pc, or a 24 way server. Are you trying to say that because the client is running on a particular type of server class hardware or maybe within an application server it has requirements of the RMD/AD it wants to enforce? Why would you make the blanket requirement that all services you consume from a client running within either of these types of servers enforce a particular DA? Or are you trying to say that the client is a mission critical app (hardware or runtime environment really unimportant to the scenario)? So why would the DA of what is in effect at the RMD/AD be needed here either? I don't see a case for some sort of dynamic configuration and selection of services the client would consume in this type of application. I would see carefully selected services running in an environment with SLAs formally agreed upon by the parties on either side. So here I could see the topic coming up, but not when the service is invoked. -----Original Message----- From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:31 AM To: Marc Goodner; Gilbert Pilz; Duane Nickull; Anish Karmarkar Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-rx] AS need for ordered delivery? You're missing the point! If I'm a server, I may have a requirement that the clients I work with must support ordered delivery. Thus, I need to know whether the RMD/AD can support ordered delivery. All the best, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:57 AM > To: Gilbert Pilz; Duane Nickull; Anish Karmarkar > Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [ws-rx] AS need for ordered delivery? > > I'm retitling the thread because this issue and AI are closed. > > Why would an AS need to send messages in order if the AD > didn't require it? If the AD does need ordering it would > request it of the RMD and the AS/RMS shouldn't need to care > about the DA in effect as it has been taken care of at the > destination. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 8:58 PM > To: Duane Nickull; Anish Karmarkar; Marc Goodner > Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024 > > I'm not sure if asking an RMD what DA it purports to provide > is necessarily asking to "see beyond it". If I have an > application that relies upon ordered delivery to function > correctly and I deploy that service onto an infrastructure > with an RMD implementation that can't/won't provide ordered > delivery clearly I have made a mistake. The question is do I > want that mistake to surface as a exception the first time a > client tries to invoke the service (hey dude! this thing > can't do ordered delivery!), or would I like the mistake to > surface in all sorts of bizarre behaviour by the application? > > - g > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:37 PM > > To: Anish Karmarkar; Marc Goodner > > Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024 > > > > > > My sense of the F2F resolution was that the TC wanted to > capture the > > fact that DAs, timeouts etc were "observed" > > > > Anish: > > > > I do not think they really are unless the RMS can see past the > > service. > > This is bad architecture IMO. Talk to the interface but > don't try to > > see beyond it. > > > > D > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]