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


Anish

I'm not clear exactly which interaction you are talking about. Any 
chance you can give a scenario and explain exactly which anon URI in 
which interaction *may* be at fault.

Paul

Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> Paul,
>
> The replyTo/FaultTo was just an example. What I was trying to convey 
> was that, during the MakeConnection discussion there was point made 
> that we *may* not be able to use the WS-A 'anon' URI because that 
> particular URI identifies the back-channel (in the case of soap/http) 
> for a particular connection, whereas an ws-rm 'anon' URI identifies 
> any back-channel of a connection created by the MakeConnection message 
> containing the right/same UUID.
>
> -Anish
> -- 
>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>> 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/>
>>>
>


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