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
- From: "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
- To: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:24:02 -0700
But onto the backs of which
messages? Obviously messages "destined to the same endpoint" but my question is
"all messages bound to the same endpoint, or only messages that have something
to do with WS-RM?"
- gp
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]