ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] AS need for ordered delivery?
- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:23:46 -0400
TCP is ALWAYS inOrder. RM is not. RM
enables InOrder "delivery" (whatever that means).
I don't think that we can specify how
InOrder is implemented, that is clearly (IMO) out of scope
as implementation detail.
Cheers,
Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
phone: +1 508 377 9295
"Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
wrote on 10/26/2005 07:53:18 PM:
>
> <SNIP/>
> <JD> I notice though that TCP is designed
- or implemented at least
> - so that the upper layer does not have to worry about packet
> reordering or numbering: so in effect TCP stacks interpret InOrder
> the same way we do so far in WS-RM: it is a black-box. Don't you
> prefer that to letting the upper layer "figuring it out"
with
> packets numbers on its hand...?
> <SNIP/>
> Yes – that is exactly what I am implying. A
RMD is a black box that
> will be able to completely recreate the original stream as it was
> intended to be received based on a solid base WS-RX protocol. What
> it does from that point on is discreet. I am not in favor of
> specifying anything about the AD or any other upper layer.
>
> My gut instinct is that DA’s should be removed
all together from this work.
>
> D
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]