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] Issue i096


Paul Fremantle wrote:
> Matt
> 
> My firm belief is that the state tables should not "make" any decisions 
> that are not justified in the text.  So I think for every hole or 
> ambiguity in the tables we need to fix up the text.
> 

Right, I think this is where the tables are quite useful -- to find 
holes or contradictions in the spec.


> I think we should clarify the text to state that the sequence is not 
> closed or terminated - i.e. it can still accept undelivered messages. Of 
> course it will not accept new messages.
> 

I'm not sure if that is necessarily the right/only way to view this. If 
the RMD knows that receiving/delivering messages in the sequence at some 
point is going to result in a MessageNumberRollover fault, does it make 
sense for the RMD to continue receiving undelivered messages till it 
reaches the limit and then fault?

-Anish
--

> Paul
> 
> 
> Matthew Lovett wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> That's where these tables get interesting. You could argue that there 
>> are several implementation choices here (keep using the Sequence, 
>> close it, terminate it) and they could all have their advocates. The 
>> tables don't have a notation for "implementation detail". Equally we 
>> could raise the issue you suggest tighten up in the spec to force a 
>> choice onto implementers.
>>
>> I'd be happy with you raising the issue, though I'd need to do some 
>> more thinking about the implications of picking a single choice. I'd 
>> also be happy to put a footnote into the table to clarify that cell. 
>> Any suggestions for text?
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com> wrote on 05/04/2006 16:25:57:
>>
>> > Matt
>> >
>> > Am I right in thinking we need a new issue for the decision you made
>> > regarding RMD Rollover? I cannot find any words in the spec describing
>> > what is acceptable after rollover. (I know its not that likely, but its
>> > twice as likely now as it used to be!).
>> >
>> > Paul
>> >
>> > Matthew Lovett wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi Paul,
>> > >
>> > > The columns that were removed were on the RMD side. In the old table
>> > > the author had assumed that if a RMD receives a message with a 
>> message
>> > > number greater than the limit, that it entered a new 'rollover' 
>> state.
>> > > I don't believe that state added any value, and don't think that the
>> > > main spec mentions, implies or defines it. Having reached that
>> > > conclusion I nuked the entire column ;)  The state transition that 
>> now
>> > > occurs is that a fault is returned to the sender, but that the RMD is
>> > > still in the 'Connected' state, so the RMS may continue to retransmit
>> > > earlier messages.
>> > >
>> > > The majority of the RMS changes are to ensure that each cell contains
>> > > both an action and a next state, as the gaps were potentially 
>> misleading.
>> > >
>> > > The RMD table changes as mentioned above, and I also clarified the
>> > > rows corresponding to message arrival (with message number in 
>> range vs
>> > > message number out of range).
>> > > I removed the RMD row corresponding to "Unrecoverable error on
>> > > creation" as I don't think a sequence would be created at all in that
>> > > case.
>> > >
>> > > I removed the RMD retransmitted message row as the RMD won't always
>> > > know if a message is retransmitted (the first transmission might have
>> > > been completely lost). The main message received row should be robust
>> > > enough to deal with this, and further detail sails close to RMD/AD
>> > > communication issues that are out of scope.
>> > >
>> > > I removed the RMD "message rollover fault" row, as an RMS is never
>> > > going to send that fault to an RMD.
>> > >
>> > > I removed the RMD "terminate sequence" row as it was a duplicate (see
>> > > 3 rows above).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I hope that helps! Thanks for asking - I'm sure that you were not the
>> > > only person who wanted a guide to the changes.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > >
>> > > Matt
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > *"Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>*
>> > >
>> > > 05/04/2006 14:55
>> > >
>> > >    > > To
>> > >    Matthew Lovett/UK/IBM@IBMGB, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
>> > > cc
>> > >    > > Subject
>> > >    RE: [ws-rx] Issue i096
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >    > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Could you give us some explanation of the changes?  In particular why
>> > > are you proposing to remove two complete columns?
>> > >  > >
>> > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>> > > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>> > > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329_
>> > > __mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com_
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > *From:* Matthew Lovett [mailto:MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com] *
>> > > Sent:* April 5, 2006 9:32 AM*
>> > > To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org*
>> > > Subject:* [ws-rx] Issue i096
>> > >  > >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > Here's an updated PDF for the state tables. There are quite a few
>> > > updates, all highlited in blue. If this proposal is accepted by the
>> > > TC, I think this leaves the tables in a reasonable state (no pun
>> > > intended), so if anyone has any further ideas for changes they are
>> > > probably best handled under new, specific issues.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I also have the openoffice doc that produced the PDF - it may be
>> > > useful for the editors if the TC accepts the proposal.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Matt
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Paul Fremantle
>> > VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>> >
>> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf
>> > 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]