I hate to be a fly on the ointment, but
the very notion of “delivered” in order infers that every service
which adheres to this protocol must have a specific architecture whereby a
service passes incoming messages to another application and/or the message sent
come from another application other than the RMS, presumably that either is on
a different network node. Is it not possible that what we really mean is [
handled || processed || acted upon ] in the order intended by the message
source” or perhaps even the more vague
“that the reliable message
destination can re-create the message stream exactly (inferring the sequence
tokens are present) as it was when it left the message sender, spanning multiple
messages in one exchange”?
Honestly, if we are creating a
specification that will withstand the scrutiny of our peers and the tests of
time, we may wish to be a bit more precise WRT the wording of this. The
patterns of AS, RMS, RMD, AD is valid in a lot of cases, but should not be
mandatory in all cases.
Sorry to sound like a broken record.
Duane
From: Gilbert Pilz
[mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005
9:16 PM
To: Jacques Durand; Patil, Sanjay;
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060
ammendment to current proposal
Yeah. What he said . . . .
- g
From: Jacques
Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005
5:00 PM
To: Gilbert Pilz; Patil, Sanjay;
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060
ammendment to current proposal
Adding to the wordsmithing, I think the
numbering must be scoped by the sequence, yet without the AS knowing it.
it might help to clearly separate these
two requirements:
(1) numbers for a sequence must be
assigned by RMS in an incremental way (by increment of 1) over time,
(2) the numbering must reflect the sending
order from AS. (I anticipate here on my most recent "new issue" which
I expect will not be controversial)
How about the Invariant:
The RM Source
MUST assign message numbers (defined below) to each message to be delivered
reliably beginning at 1 for a new sequence and increasing by exactly 1 for the
next assignment within the sequence. Within a sequence, these numbers MUST be
assigned in the same order in which messages are sent by the Application
Source.
Other parts of my amendment (L78, L168,
L454) are intended to align with removal of "reliable message" and
usage of "reliable delivery" instead.
Jacques
From: Gilbert Pilz
[mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005
1:19 PM
To: Patil, Sanjay;
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060
ammendment to current proposal
This seems to be both redundant and
potentially confusing. At this point in the document we are referring to "the
protocol" in an abstract sense. The introductory sentence states "During the lifetime of the protocol . . ". A Sequence is a
lower level construct for managing the lifetime of "the
protocol". The AS and AD need not (and possibly "should not")
have any knowledge of the Sequence.
- g
From: Patil,
Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005
12:52 PM
To: Gilbert Pilz;
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060
ammendment to current proposal
On a side note, I think the Sequence
scoping of the message numbers should be clear from this invariant.
How about:
Replace "For each message that is
to be delivered reliably ..."
with "In a Sequence, for each message that
is to be delivered reliably ..."
Thanks,
Sanjay
From: Gilbert
Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, Dec 07, 2005
12:39 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] Issue 060
ammendment to current proposal
The motion currently on the table is to change first invariant
under section 2.3 to:
The RM Source MUST assign each message to
be delivered reliably a message number (defined below) beginning at 1 and
increasing by exactly 1 for each subsequent message to be delivered reliably.
The RM Source MUST assign each reliable
message in the Sequence a message number (defined below) beginning at 1 for the
first message sent by the Application Source and increasing by exactly 1 for
each subsequent reliable message sent by the Application Source.
The intent is to tighten up the contract between the AS and
RMS with regards to message numbering.
I would like to combine the two proposals into the
following:
For each message that is to be delivered
reliably, the RM Source MUST assign a message number (defined below)
beginning at 1 for the first message sent by the Application Source and
increasing by exactly 1 for each subsequent message sent by the Application
Source.