Re: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related touse of extended anonymous uri

[Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>]

Anish

I don't agree with this point. RM is composing with the existing flow to 
*add* reliability. There are many reasons that the server cannot reply 
on the backchannel - network failures, timeouts, etc. In those cases the 
original contract for delivery is over, since WS-A and SOAP have no 
inherent retry or retransmission model. WS-A does not and should not say 
what goes on beyond that original request/response. If or how the reply 
gets returned beyond that point is not WS-A's concern. That is when RM 
should kick in. At no point was it the intention or the result of WS-A 
to prevent the composability with reliability with the existing URI schemes.

I suggest anyone who has any doubt about this carefully rereads the 
distinction between "response" and "reply" in the WS-A spec.

Paul

Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> Doug Davis wrote:
>>
>> IIRC there were some other reasons as well.  
>
> Another reason that was discussed was:
> is it even valid to use the WS-A 'anon' URI for this?
> WS-A 'anon' URI in a ReplyTo/FaultTo says, send the reply/fault in the 
> HTTP-response (back-channel) of *this* connection (in the SOAP/HTTP 
> binding case), whereas the WS-RM 'anon' URI in a ReplyT/FaultTo means 
> send the reply/fault in the HTTP-response of this connection (in the 
> SOAP/HTTP binding case) or *any* HTTP-response of a connection created 
> using the wsrm:MakeConnection message with the correct/same UUID.
>
> -Anish
> -- 
>
> <snip/>
>