[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] In support of simplifying WSRM Policy
Ashok That is the customer scenario. I'm not arguing for removing policy - I think the single assertion that RM is required or optional is highly valuable. However, by removing MaxMessageNum, and making AckInterval a part of the CreateSequenceResponse, we simplify the policy - making it simpler for the cases where policy is not used. Paul Ashok Malhotra wrote: > There is one scenario, though, in which no WS-RX policy is needed. > This is where a number of services are covered by a corporate policy > that says all messages are or are not RM. Perhaps this was the situation > with your customer. > > All the best, Ashok > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] >> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:00 AM >> To: Paul Fremantle; wsrx >> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] In support of simplifying WSRM Policy >> >> Paul: >> I'm all for simplification but I have a couple of questions >> of clarification. >> >> If I'm considering using a Web Service I look at its WSDL. >> This tells me the message structures but does not tell me >> whether any of the messages need to use a reliable protocol. >> If some/all the messages need a RM protocol we need to be >> able to say this somehow. >> >> We also need to be able to say which or all messages need the >> protocol so we need some attachment options. >> >> All the best, Ashok >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:33 AM >>> To: wsrx >>> Subject: [ws-rx] In support of simplifying WSRM Policy >>> >>> Yesterday I visited a large financial institution (a customer of a >>> number of our member's companies) who is looking seriously >>> >> at WSRM as >> >>> a major part of their infrastructure. >>> >>> They made some pertinent comments, based on trying three >>> >> different RM >> >>> implementations from various of the organisations >>> >> represented in our >> >>> TC. >>> >>> Interoperability is their biggest issue. The biggest problems they >>> have had today come from WS-Policy attachment. Different >>> >> vendors have >> >>> chosen to put the WSRMP in different places, and this caused them a >>> number of headaches. When I pointed out this was an easy >>> >> thing for us >> >>> to fix, I got the reply that they have no need for policy. They are >>> using WSRM in fixed patterns inside there organisation, and they >>> suggested (unprompted I might add) that they would like an >>> >> effective >> >>> model of using WSRM without policy. I believe this backs up the >>> proposals I have made for simplifying WSRM Policy. >>> >>> They also made a request that when doing interoperability >>> >> testing we >> >>> not only publish the results, but also some details of the >>> >> codebases >> >>> that were used. They have concerns that some interoperability tests >>> have been effected using different codebases than are then >>> >> offered to >> >>> the marketplace. >>> >>> Regards, Paul >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Paul Fremantle >>> VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair >>> >>> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle >>> paul@wso2.com >>> >>> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle paul@wso2.com "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]