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] [NEW ISSUE] When to piggy-back RM headers



Gil,
 we're talking about the piggy-backing of the AckReq and SeqAck headers.
-Doug



"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>

05/16/2006 05:00 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [ws-rx] [NEW ISSUE] When to piggy-back RM headers





I was wondering if we could use this conversation to clear up something that has always bothered me. Suppose we group all SOAP messages into two sets; those that have "something to do with" WS-RM and those that do not. Messages in the first set include Sequence Lifecycle Messages (e.g. CloseSequence), Sequence Traffic Messages (messages bearing a Sequence header), and WS-RM fault messages. Messages are the later set include all SOAP messages that aren't in the first set.
 
Of these two sets, which are candidates for being piggybacked? Both or just the first set? Depending upon your implementation it may be that the RMS and RMD only ever "see" messages in the first set, right?
 
- gp


From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent:
Monday, May 15, 2006 6:11 AM
To:
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
Re: [ws-rx] [NEW ISSUE] When to piggy-back RM headers



Based on some additional feedback I'd like to modify the proposal slightly:


Proposal:


Add after the first paragraph in section 3:

Some RM header blocks may be added (or 'piggy-backed') to messages that happen to be targeted to the same endpoint to which those headers are to be sent, thus saving the overhead of an additional message exchange.  For the purpose of determining whether these soap header blocks may be added to a message, two Endpoint References are considered to be equal if the following are true:
- The [address] properties of two endpoint references are equal when compared according to Section 6 of [RFC 2396]
- They contain the same number of reference parameters
- For each reference parameter in one endpoint reference there exists an equivalent reference parameter in the other.  One [reference parameter] is equivalent to another [reference parameter] if their byte streams per Exclusive XML canonicalization (with an empty "inclusives" list) are equal.  Note that this may result in incorrect answers if there are qnames in attribute or element content.


(the 3rd bullet changed)


Marc - when you update the issue list can you please update the proposal?


thanks

-Doug





Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

05/04/2006 12:18 AM


To
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject
[ws-rx] [NEW ISSUE] When to piggy-back RM headers








Description:

It is not clear when an implementation is allowed to piggy-back RM headers (acks, ackReq) in a message.  I suspect that most implementations will simply compare the wsa:Address of the EPRs - however, since ref-p's are an integral part of EPRs they should really be included in the comparison.


The latest WSA spec says:


2.3 Endpoint Reference Comparison

This specification provides no concept of endpoint identity and therefore does not provide any mechanism to determine equality or inequality of EPRs and does not specify the consequences of their equality or inequality. However, note that it is possible for other specifications to provide a comparison function that is applicable within a limited scope.


This proposal does just that - it proposes a comparison function for use just by RM for a very specific purpose.


Target
: core


Type
: design


Proposal:


Add after the first paragraph in section 3:


Some RM header blocks may be added (or 'piggy-backed') to messages that happen to be targeted to the same endpoint to which those headers are to be sent, thus saving the overhead of an additional message exchange.  For the purpose of determining whether these soap header blocks may be added to a message, two Endpoint References are considered to be equal if the following are true:

- The [address] properties of two endpoint references are equal when compared according to Section 6 of [RFC 2396]

- They contain the same number of reference parameters

- For each reference parameter in one endpoint reference there exists an equivalent reference parameter in the other.  One [reference parameter] is equivalent to another [reference parameter] if their byte streams per Exclusive XML cononicalization are equal.


(some should recognize this from the submitted WSA spec)


thanks

-Doug



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