RE: [ws-rx] AS need for ordered delivery?

["Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>]

I admit to being a bit confused by this thread as well. My point is
pretty well encapsulated by UC-5 in
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14453/WS
-RX_Use_Cases.doc. If people feel that this is a valid use case then it
seems clear we need to allow the AS/RMS to determine the DA supported
for a particular sequence whether or not such a capability violates the
rules of loose coupling the tenets of good behavior and the unwritten
laws of common courtesy.

- g

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:04 AM
> To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Gilbert Pilz; Duane Nickull; 
> Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>