ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Issue i078
- From: Matthew Lovett <MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com>
- To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:17:41 +0000
Hi all,
I'd like to kick off some discussion
about issue i078. I see where it is coming from, and I do have some sympathy
with the issue, but I'm not sure that making the operation 2-way really
helps. Consider the following cases (where I assume that terminate sequence
is still one-way):
a1. RMS sends a <wsrm:TerminateSequence>
and the RMD receives it
- all ok, but the RMS doesn't know that
- If the RMS wants to it can retry until
it gets an UnknownSequence fault (always one more message than we needed)
a2. RMS sends a <wsrm:TerminateSequence>,
which is lost
- The RMD will probably rely on some
implemetation-specific cleanup
- If the RMS wants to it can retry until
it gets an UnknownSequence fault (always one more message than we needed)
a3. A badly behaved RMS does not send
a <wsrm:TerminateSequence>
- The RMD will probably rely on some
implemetation-specific cleanup
If we put a 2-way terminate sequence
into the mix then we get an increase in the number of cases, but I don't
see much advantage
b1. RMS sends a <wsrm:TerminateSequence>
and the RMD receives it, and the reply gets back to the RMS
- all ok
b2. RMS sends a <wsrm:TerminateSequence>
and the RMD receives it, but the reply gets lost
- all ok, but the RMS doesn't know that
- If the RMS wants to it can retry until
it gets an UnknownSequence fault
b3. RMS sends a <wsrm:TerminateSequence>,
which is lost
- The RMD will probably rely on some
implemetation-specific cleanup
- If the RMS wants to it can retry until
it gets a TerminateSequenceReply or an UnknownSequence fault
b4. A badly behaved RMS does not send
a <wsrm:TerminateSequence>
- The RMD will probably rely on some
implemetation-specific cleanup
So, we have complicated the protocol,
but a defensive RMD still needs some way to clean up stale sequences. The
advantage is that sometimes the RMS will get an unambiguous TerminateSequenceReply,
though the RMS still needs to handle the case where it gets a UnknownSequence
fault.
I also believe that the overwhelming
majority of <wsrm:TerminateSequence> messages will get to the RMD.
Given that I think that the best thing to do here is leave the operation
as a 1-way.
Does anyone else have any comments?
Matt
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]