Re: [ws-rx] [Fwd: NEW ISSUE: CloseSequenceResponse and TerminateSequenceResponsemessages are inconsistent wrt presence of wsrm:Identifier]

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Here is the detailed proposal to resolve the as yet unnumbered issue:

All changes are wrt CDII 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/16271/wsrm-1.1-spec-cd-02.pdf

1) After line 398 insert:
      <wsrm:Identifier ...> xs:anyURI </wsrm:Identifier>

2) After line 404 insert:
/wsrm:CloseSequenceResponse/wsrm:Identifier
This REQUIRED element MUST contain an absolute URI conformant with
RFC3986 that uniquely identifies the Sequence that is closed.

/wsrm:CloseSequenceResponse/wsrm:Identifier/@{any}
This is an extensibility mechanism to allow additional attributes, based
on schemas, to be added to the element.

3) After line 1049 (in schema) insert:
          <xs:element ref="wsrm:Identifier"/>

-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
>  > > --
>  > >
>  >