[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Remove LastMessage
I’m not so sure. I need to think
about this some more. A couple of observations though. First
removing this breaks at least one point of consistency with the contributed
spec. I suggest we think carefully before doing that. Second I don’t see
this as a “protocol complexity” issue. While the Close operation
could completely subsume the LastMessage marker you can still use this marker
today without using Close at all. That seems valuable to retain as it provides a
simpler protocol interaction capability in normal circmstances. I disagree that this should be removed because
a security mechanism can address part of the functionality. I might agree is
the composition with that security mechanism was actually defined. If that is
part of the rationale for this I suggest not doing this until we have that
security composition defined. From: Jacques Durand
[mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com] +1 I thought about proposing this too. The
new Close operation subsumes almost completely the LastMessage marker -
the added value is not worth the added
protocol complexity. -Jacques From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]