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] 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]