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] i075: a proposal


Jacques Durand wrote:
> Anish:
> 
> Do we really need to keep this "static advertising" within scope of this 
> specification?

In that case, we should change the RM assertion (modulo the resolution 
of issues around AI and MaxMessageNumber) to:

<wsrmp:RMAssertion [wsp:Optional="true"]? ... >
   <wsrmp:AcknowledgementInterval Milliseconds="xs:unsignedLong" ... /> ?
   <wsrmp:MaxMessageNumber Number="xs:unsignedLong" ... /> ?
</wsrmp:RMAssertion>

Note that the "..." from the previous pseudo-schema is removed. I.e., no 
extensibility point. The RMAssertion would essentially say whether RM is 
required/supported (depending on the value of wsp:Optional).

If we do that, the issue of RM policy/parameters conflicting across WSDL 
ports/endpoints does not arise.

... and if you want to use extensibility, just use the one in CSR message.

-Anish
--

> We know that some out of band communication is certainly expected for 
> publishing DAs, etc, which is now considered out of scope. We could 
> expect a client to learn about parameters the same way.
> 
> Also the static advertising we are talking about here is about protocol 
> parameters that some implementations may want to change from one 
> sequence to the other, based on various factors (CPU load, 
> negotiation...) that may have little to do with the service definition. 
> It is unclear what semantics a presence in WSDL would have - mostly 
> advisory as you say.
> 
> That is why I'd propose to discuss new issue "proposed-03" asap, before 
> i075.
> 
> - Jacques
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:35 AM
> To: Doug Davis
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i075: a proposal
> 
> I mostly agree with the statement below.
> 
> But I think there is an issue with the idea of attaching RM policy
> parameters to WSDL endpoint given the resolution of issue i010 -- which
> states that both RMS and RMDs can span multiple endpoints (EPRs) and/or
> multiple WSDL endpoint/ports.
> 
> The fundamental unit/scope in WSRM is the Sequence and RM policy
> assertion parameters should be associated with the Sequence rather than
> a WSDL port/endpoint (I know that there is a possibility that we may end
> up with zero RM policy parameters in the WSRM policy doc, but given the
> extensibility within the assertion, there may be parameters specified
> that are not defined by the WSRM policy document). Which is why, I think
> it makes sense to include such parameters in the CreateSeqenceResponse
> rather than in the WSDL. But there is certainly a need to advertise the
> policy assertion/parameter through WSDL so that it is statically (before
> creating the Sequence) available. But I view such WSDL attachment (RM
> policy parameters, not the assertion itself) as advisory rather than
> definitive. I think anything present in the CreateSeqenceResponse is
> definitive. I.e., parameters in the CSR trumps parameters in the WSDL.
> 
> -Anish
> -- 
> 
> Doug Davis wrote:
>  >
>  > I thought Umit had proposed this but I couldn't find the email, sorry if
>  > its a dup, but just to make sure there's a formal proposal out there, I
>  > believe all we need to do for issue 075 is to add this text:
>  >
>  > After line 485 in [1]:
>  > The RM Policy parameters in effect for each Sequence is governed by the
>  > endpoint
>  > that was used for the <wsrm:CreateSequence> message.
>  >
>  > [1]
>  > 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/15177/wsrm-1.1-spec-cd-01.pdf 
> 
>  >
>  >
>  > -Doug
> 


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