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] [Fwd: NEW ISSUE: CloseSequenceResponse andTerminateSequenceResponse messages are inconsistent wrt presence of wsrm:Identifier]



oops, my bad... that's what I meant

The one that adds the Identifier element. My lexidysia has struck again.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295


Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> wrote on 02/09/2006 02:27:16 PM:

> Chris,
>
> As I said in my email, I have a slight preference for option 1. I'll
> send out and email with precise changes for that.
>
> -Anish
> --
>
> Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> >
> > Anish,
> >
> > I would have no problem either way, either. Why don't we go with option 2.
> > Can you pull together the precise changes/line numbers necessary to have a
> > fully fleshed out proposal that we can vote on?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Christopher Ferris
> > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> > phone: +1 508 377 9295
> >
> > Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> wrote on 02/09/2006
> > 01:21:54 AM:
> >
> >  > Since the email hasn't shown up in the archive after almost 8 hours.
> >  > Resending. Apologies if you get this twice.
> >  >
> >  > -Anish
> >  > --
> >
> >  >
> >  > ----- Message from Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> on
> >  > Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:37:42 -0800 -----
> >  >
> >  > To:
> >  >
> >  > Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
> >  >
> >  > cc:
> >  >
> >  > ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> >  >
> >  > Subject:
> >  >
> >  > NEW ISSUE: CloseSequenceResponse and TerminateSequenceResponse
> >  > messages are inconsistent wrt presence of wsrm:Identifier
> >  >
> >  > Ok, thanks for the response.
> >  >
> >  > I would like to open a new issue (changed the subject line accordingly).
> >  > (details of the issue below).
> >  >
> >  > I could live with either removing the wsrm:Identifier in TSR message or
> >  > adding the wsrm:Identifier in the CSR message. I have a slight
> >  > preference for the latter. The reason for this is that, even though in
> >  > either case, wsa:RelatesTo allows you to correlate the message with the
> >  > request, it is possible that the RMS engine processes messages based on
> >  > the wsrm:Identifier (as that uniquely identifies the Sequence and can be
> >  > used for resource garbage collection, routing of messages, maintenance
> >  > of the Sequence et). It also makes things cleaner by having the
> >  > identifier in every message in the Sequence (except the CreateSequence
> >  > message). Additionally, if the messages are logged, having the
> >  > identifier in every message quickly allows one to identify all the
> >  > messages in the Sequence (say for debugging purposes). But, as I said
> >  > above I could live with either.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > Title: CloseSequenceResponse and TerminateSequenceResponse messages are
> >  > inconsistent wrt presence of wsrm:Identifier
> >  >
> >  > Description/Justification: Both the CloseSequenceResponse and
> >  > TerminateSequenceResponse follow a similar pattern, but the CSR message
> >  > does not contain the wsrm:Identifier whereas the TSR does.
> >  >
> >  > Target: wsrm spec
> >  >
> >  > Type: design
> >  >
> >  > Proposal: Either (1) add the wsrm:Identifier element to the
> >  > CloseSequenceResponse message OR (2) remove the wsrm:Identifier element
> >  > in the TerminateSequenceResponse message.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > -Anish
> >  > --
> >  >
> >  > Doug Davis wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > > I think the only reason I didn't include an ID in the CloseResponse
> > was
> >  > > because I assumed the wsa:relatesTo would take care of it and it
> > seemed
> >  > > like redundant information.  I agree we should be consistent and I
> > don't
> >  > > have a huge preference either way.
> >  > > -Doug
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > *Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>*
> >  > >
> >  > > 02/02/2006 07:16 PM
> >  > >
> >  > >    
> >  > > To
> >  > >    wsrx <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >  > > cc
> >  > >    
> >  > > Subject
> >  > >    [ws-rx] Possible new issue: identifier in CloseSequenceResponse
> > message
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >    
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > While creating the proposal for TerminateSequenceResponse message, I
> >  > > noticed that the CloseSequenceResponse message does not have the
> >  > > Sequence Identifier in the message. Is this an an oversight and
> > that the
> >  > > identifier does indeed need to be included in the message OR is the
> >  > > intention to rely on wsa:RelatesTo? I think having the identifier
> > in the
> >  > > message just makes it much cleaner/simpler/consistent. But
> > regardless, I
> >  > > included the identifier in the TSR message (assuming that it was an
> >  > > error not to include it in the CloseSequenceReponse message -- possibly
> >  > > an incorrect assumption) and we need to be consistent: either have the
> >  > > Identifier in the CloseSequenceResponse message or remove the
> > Identifier
> >  > > in the TerminateSequenceResponse message.
> >  > >
> >  > > I should have highlighted this in my proposal for the TSR message. I
> >  > > intended to, but somehow missed it. Apologies.
> >  > >
> >  > > -Anish
> >  > > --
> >  > >
> >  >


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