Part of our difficulty is the language in
CD2 373-374.
Firstly it says that the RMD may ‘close’
the sequence itself. It is not clear what ‘close’
means. Does close in quotes mean that it internally considers the
sequence closed or does it send a SequenceClosedFault to the RMS?
Also un the sentence starting on line 374
it says “Please see <wsrm:Final> above” I do not see
that above
Thanks
-bob
From: Matthew Lovett
[mailto:MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006
9:39 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Bob Freund-Hitachi
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] issue 84
proposal for rms colums e-h
Hi all,
As
i084 is back up for debate this week, I thought that I'd try and restart this
email thread. I agree with Doug, I think that the text in Section 4.7 is clear
(line 752 - 754 in CD2). To repeat:
This
fault is sent by an RM Destination to indicate that the specified sequence has
been closed. This fault
MUST
be generated when an RM Destination is asked to receive a message for a
sequence that is
closed.
This
also couples with the text in lines 364 - 368:
Upon
receipt of this message, or
subsequent
to the RM Destination closing the Sequence of its own volition, the RM
Destination MUST
include
a final SequenceAcknowledgement (that MUST include the <wsrm:Final>
element) header block
on
each message destined to the RM Source, including the CloseSequenceResponse
message and on
any
Sequence Fault transmitted to the RMS.
So
what happens if the RMS receives a SequenceClosedFault?
I'd
say that the RMS now knows that the RMD view of the Sequence is that it is
closed, and don't think that there can be any other interpretation. Thanks to
the second quotation, we also know that the RMS has 'final' ack state for the sequence.
The RMS is now free to do whatever it thinks it should with that
information, and I don't think the spec needs to say any more.
So,
I'm sticking to my proposal, e.g. close with no action. However, I'm happy to
hear counter proposals, and I'd be interested to see concrete proposals for
replacement / additional text to help clarify.
Bob,
do you have any ideas you'd like to circulate before the call? I don't see any
reason to object, if you come up with some clearer text.
Thanks
Matt
Doug Davis
<dug@us.ibm.com>
19/01/2006 22:34
|
To
|
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [ws-rx] issue 84 proposal for rms colums
e-h
|
|
But your proposal doesn't say what the RMS should do with it - it just repeats
what was said
before - that the sequence is closed. :-)
-Doug
"Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com> wrote on
01/19/2006 05:01:27 PM:
> No, but the spec should say what an RMS to do
if the fault is
> received at any time.
> We could say
> ignore it,
> Lock up,
> Close the sequence
> Right now, it is left to the imagination
>
>
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:49 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] issue 84 proposal for
rms colums e-h
>
>
> hmmm, does the spec say that the fault can be
sent w/o some RMS
> initiated action?
> -Doug
>
>
> "Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com> wrote on
> 01/19/2006 04:10:04 PM:
>
> > One reason is that it is written that
the fault is in response to
> > the receipt of a message. If the
fault is NOT as a response to an
> > RMS initiated message and it is simply
received by the RMS, what
> is it to do?
> > Our readers would prefer that an explicit
action (rather than an
> > implicit understanding) would clarify
the situation.
> > -bob
> >
> >
> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:56
PM
> > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] issue 84 proposal
for rms colums e-h
> >
> >
> > Bob,
> > the fault says:
> > This fault is sent by an RM Destination
to indicate that the
> > specified sequence has been closed. This
fault
> > MUST be generated when an RM Destination
is asked to receive a
> > message for a sequence that is
> > closed.
> >
> > repeating... "to indicate that the
specified sequence has been
> > closed". Why would
> > adding "This fault when received by
the RMS indicates that the
> > sequence has been closed by the
RMD"
> > make this more clear? What
assumption could the RMS make aside from
> > "the sequence has been
closed"?
> > I'm not necessarily against adding your
text I just don't see how it
> > helps to basically
> > repeat the same thing twice.
> > -Doug
> >
> >
> > "Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com> wrote on
> > 01/19/2006 03:41:01 PM:
> >
> > > I feel that WD07 lines 759-761
describes under what conditions
> > > Sequence Closed is sent by the RMD,
not what actions must be taken
> > > by RMS if it is received when RMS
believes that the sequence may
> > notbe closed.
> > > Proposal:
> > > Add following text after line 761:
(ref WD07)
> > > This fault when received by the RMS
indicates that the sequence has
> > > been closed by the RMD.