[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 - a revisted proposal
Doug, I have two questions on this most recent proposal: * Since the threads continue on your earlier proposal, I'm wondering which one you consider current? That is, did this one take over though many of us are responding to earlier versions? * I don't understand how this proposal addresses one of the important issues I have heard discussed in this TC. Whether or not the problem is addressed in this TC, there might be an issue with GetQuoteResponse (to use your example) content that was expected on the anonymous URI back-channel but was not available. The original GetQuote may be acknowledged without completing the higher-level GetQuote / GetQuoteResponse MEP. If I understand your proposal correctly, you are suggesting the GetQuoteResponse would be used instead of the anonymous URI back-channel, not after a specific back-channel is no longer available? Is that correct? If so, it seems very inefficient because it requires an additional Request / Response exchange for every higher-level response, including those responses almost-always available in time for the anonymous URI back-channel. thanx, doug On 27/04/06 07:49, Doug Davis wrote: > Based on feedback we've received I've attached an updated proposal for > i089. The basic idea is still the same but I think we've cleaned > things up quite a bit and eliminated some of the confusion that some > people thought the old proposal introduced. This one is pretty small > and still addresses all of the use-cases we've heard about. The > biggest change is that we've made it more clear that GetMessage is > designed to simply (re-)establish a transport-specific back-channel, > nothing more. > (sorry, no cute poem :-) > thanks, > -Doug
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]