OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Issue 060 ammendment to current proposal


Duane,

AS, RMS, RMD, AD are part of the abstract model and does not necessarily 
reflect the underlying implementations architecture. I would think that 
your example of the RMD delivering 1st message to "endpoint" 1 and the 
2nd message to "endpoint" 2 is quite valid per this model, as this model 
would consider "endpoint" 1 and 2 as a single entity: AD. The abstract 
model is based on functionality/responsibility of various 
parties/entities involved in the protocol. It allows us to 
define/describe the protocol and specify responsibilities/contracts.

-Anish
--

Duane Nickull wrote:
> Part of me wonders if we should just be talking about RMS and RMD and 
> not AS/AD at all.
> -Doug
> 
> All of me wants to drop AD/AS.
> 
>    1. Implementers should be free to design and control how they process
>       messages “in order”.  As long as they understand the intentions of
>       the RMS (re-create the stream) and can make decisions on that,
>       that is all we should care about.
>    2. The WS-RX spec should not constrain all service implementations to
>       a specific model or pattern of AS -> RMS -> RMD -> AD
>    3. We should not constrain service by mandating that any message or
>       message sequence received by the RMD cannot be divided to multiple
>       endpoints.  The way AD is worded now, it appears that all messages
>       of one sequence must be “delivered” to another single actor in
>       order.  What if someone wants to have the first in a sequence go
>       to endpoint #1, the second go to endpoint #2 etc?  The RMS should
>       not care as long as the “externally visible aspects” of the
>       service match their expectations.
> 
> There are several other reasons but for these alone I would prefer to 
> drop AD, AS from the spec and perhaps replace it with some words that 
> reflect the real intention which I believe is to allow the RMD to 
> understand the sequence intentions of the RMS yet leave implementers 
> free to handle the intentions in a way they see fit.  We should stick to 
> “externally visible properties” only and not dictate specific models 
> behind a service interface.
> 
> Duane
> 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]