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: RE: RE: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rmrelated to use of extended anonymous uri


I’m still looking for an answer to this question. If someone cannot point me to the text that restricts the RM anon URI to use only for RM I’ll raise a new PR issue so we can get that taken care of.

 

From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:55 PM
To: Doug Davis
Cc: Alastair Green; Gilbert Pilz; Paul Fremantle; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: RE: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related to use of extended anonymous uri

 

This is of course only for RM related messages though, e.g. RM protocol messages or messages on a sequence. Do you agree with that? I ask because example 1 seems to imply a use independent of RM.

 

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:41 PM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: Alastair Green; Gilbert Pilz; Marc Goodner; Paul Fremantle; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: RE: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related to use of extended anonymous uri

 


yup - the use of MakeConnection to get the CS is independent of the presence (or absence) of an outbound sequence.
Example 1 shows it being used in sort of an out-only MEP scenario, while the interop scenarios show it being used for a request/response MEP where the two sequences are totally unrelated (meaning no Offer was used - not that they're related even if there is an offer used  ;-)
In terms of using it to deliver messages to a non-addressable endpoint they're the same - they just use different mechanisms to convey the destination EPR (replyTo vs subscription epr).
-Doug

Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>

09/27/2006 01:19 PM

To

Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>, Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com>, Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>

cc

Gilbert Pilz <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>

Subject

RE: RE: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related to use of extended anonymous uri

 




It was just pointed out to me that polling for the CS is covered in step 5 of Scenario 3.2. I missed it as I had thought the use case for the RM anon URI was polling for the CS in the absence of an outbound sequence.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:33 AM
To: Alastair Green; Paul Fremantle
Cc: Gilbert Pilz; Doug Davis; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related to use of extended anonymous uri

This brings up another point. Am I the only one confused by step 1 in this example? That's an interaction that isn't described in the spec.

Scenario 3.2 in the interop doc [1] covers initial use of the RM anon URI as I recall our discussions. Materially it isn't any different than the SequenceID form of MakeConnection described in scenario 3.1. The other variant I recall for using the RM anon URI was establishing it with a MakeConnection message before sending the CS. Essentially this is polling for an inbound CS message without an outbound sequence. This was the variant that could not be done with the SequenceID form and is how we wound up with two mechanisms for the same thing.

Example 1 is not a variant of using the RM anon URI I recall any discussion around. This example makes me wonder how else a service might receive the RM anon URI. It implies a broader use of the RM anon URI than what is described in the spec. I don't think we've thought through the implications of this.


1
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-implement/download.php/20311/InteropScenarios2.doc

-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Green [mailto:alastair.green@choreology.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:01 AM
To: Paul Fremantle
Cc: Marc Goodner; Gilbert Pilz; Doug Davis; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related to use of extended anonymous uri

I'm just as confused.

Here's a segment of the example from the spec. The MakeConnection is responded to by a SOAP envelope containing a real message in the HTTP response of the HTTP Request that carried the MakeConnection.

I have always understood that MakeConnection is called repeatedly (when
needed) to solicit the next message inbound on the response.

Alastair

*Step 5* - The event consumer checks for another message pending:

<S:Envelope xmlns:S="
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
xmlns:wsrm="
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"
xmlns:wsa="
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
 <S:Header>
   <wsa:Action>
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608/MakeConnection</wsa:Action>
   <wsa:To>
http://example.org/subscriptionService </wsa:To>
 </S:Header>
 <S:Body>
   <wsrm:MakeConnection>
     <wsrm:Address>
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608/anonymous?id=550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000</wsrm:Address>
   </wsrm:MakeConnection>
 </S:Body>
</S:Envelope>

Notice this is the same message as the one sent in step 2.

*Step 6* - If there is a message pending for this destination then it is returned on the HTTP response:

<S:Envelope xmlns:S="
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
xmlns:wsrm="
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"
xmlns:wsa="
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
 <S:Header>
   <wsa:Action>
http://example.org/eventType1 </wsa:Action>
   <wsa:To>
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608/anonymous?id=550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000</wsa:To>
   <wsrm:Sequence>
     <wsrm:Identifier>
http://example.org/rmid-456 </wsrm:Identifier>
   </wsrm:Sequence>
   <wsrm:MessagePending pending="true"/>
 </S:Header>
 <S:Body>
   <!-- event specific data -->
 </S:Body>
</S:Envelope>



Paul Fremantle wrote:
> Alastair
>
> I'm really really confused by your note. Are you talking about anon on
> the original request or on the MakeConnection. On the MakeConnection
> its irrelevant because its logically one-way (just opening the
> connection).
>
> Paul
>
> Alastair Green wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> Can we pursue the second point just a little?
>>
>> Does the use of [reply endpoint] = anon with SOAP Binding imply that
>> a failure to deliver a SOAP envelope in the HTTP response entity body
>> is incompatible with a 200/202 HTTP status code?
>>
>> Or is there only a "moral obligation" to try one's best to reply?
>>
>> I'm thinking here about the case of responding to a MakeConnection.
>> If the former interpretation is correct, then WS-A anon URI won't do,
>> because the needed behaviour is "response is optional".
>>
>> The other case you refer to is one where the "set up message" is the
>> first message of the actual conversation, and a reply is immediately
>> available.
>>
>> Variant 1. A sends a set up message, like the one in the spec
>> example, that says, in application-specific terms, "get ready to
>> receive MakeConnections for connection with UUID X , but don't reply
>> directly to this message". This message is a prelude to the real
>> conversation or stream.
>>
>> Variant 2. A sends a message, which contains the connection
>> identifier, and an anonymous (or anon-or-none) reply address. The
>> expectation is that B will send a message straight back on the HTTP
>> response, if it has one, or will "ack" (send an empty, 202), if it
>> doesn't want to hang around till a reply is generated. If the
>> conversation style is ping-pong then this could be repeated
>> indefinitely, without use of MakeConnection (assuming no failures,
>> and/or resent messages are tolerable). However, it is always possible
>> that MC will be needed.
>>
>> To indicate Variant 2 behaviour, would we need to put the connection
>> identifier in a special place (e.g. as a header element) which is
>> reserved for the semantic "I want a response right now for this
>> connection, and be ready to receive a MC if you can't reply"?
>>
>> In other words, am I right in understanding the general requirement
>> to be expressed in a conversation something like this?
>>
>> A req: message 1, connection X, reply to anon if available.
>> B resp: message 2
>> A req: message 3, connection X, reply to anon if available B resp: no
>> envelope, 202, i.e. message not available A req: MakeConnection, X B
>> resp: message 4, MessagePending A req: MakeConnection, X B resp:
>> message 5
>>
>> ["message n" means "real message, not the MC that jollies things
>> along"]
>>
>> Presence of X in message 1 or message 3 has special meaning: it
>> implies potential use of MakeConnection to continue the exchange.
>>
>> Alastair
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>>> Alastair
>>>
>>> So what you describe is almost exactly the SequenceID-based model
>>> for MakeConnection.
>>>
>>> The "CreateConnection" is implied exactly if and only if there is a
>>> CS+Offer with the Offer's EPR as anonymous.
>>> The SequenceID then becomes the UUID for the MakeConnection.
>>> The "TerminateConnection" is the terminate sequence.
>>>
>>> As regards this:
>>>> 2) *Here's the one that bothers me*. I've raised it before, but
>>>> seen no discussion on the point.
>>>>
>>>> [reply endpoint] = anon does not, in my view, mean "response is
>>>> optional". I think, after very careful textual reading of e.g. WS-A
>>>> SOAP Binding, that it means (for that binding) -- there must be an
>>>> envelope in the transfer protocol's response. Why it means that, is
>>>> not clear to me. If that restriction is indeed present, then I
>>>> think it would be reasonable to ask WS-A WG to explain/consider
>>>> change. If I am imagining things, then great -- no problem, WS-A
>>>> anon URI will do the trick. As I have put it before, I think that
>>>> the [reply endpoint] is a hybrid of anon and none -- the receiver
>>>> decides.
>>> It is my belief that the server should do everything in its ability
>>> to respond on the backchannel when the replyto=anon. I don't think
>>> that it should see that RM is on and automatically reply 202 and
>>> wait for a MakeConnection. I think that RM should only be there to
>>> add reliability in that case. In other words when the socket dies or
>>> times out, then the message can be reliably delivered. So I agree
>>> with your reading of the WS-A SOAP binding. We are making
>>> significant changes to Axis2 and Sandesha to ensure that we try to
>>> deliver the response on the backchannel whenever possible.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> Alastair Green wrote:
>>>> I don't think you need to use reference parameters, in order to use
>>>> plain WS-A anon URI.
>>>>
>>>> I raised a number of points relating to this discussion in an
>>>> exchange with Doug, Chris and Paul from 4th to 11th August, which I
>>>> think could usefully be revisited in the light of the WS-A PR
>>>> comments. In the archive the thread starts with
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/2
>>>> 00608/msg00011.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> which is a reply from Doug to an initial posting of mine that is
>>>> not archived for some reason. I suggested a scheme that does not
>>>> require a special URI, and I shall repeat it here.
>>>>
>>>> My general thrust was: "why doesn't RM use a normal anon"? I
>>>> concluded as the thread progressed that there was little chance of
>>>> RX revisiting its design, and as a very part-time member of this
>>>> group, didn't want to push the point. However, as it comes up again
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> There are two items that need to appear on the wire to support the
>>>> RM requirement.
>>>>
>>>> 1) An identifier for a stream of messages (connection).
>>>> 2) A message that invites an optional response on the back-channel.
>>>>
>>>> The identifier type could be left to the application, but it seems
>>>> reasonable to define a wsrm:ConnectionIdentifier, and specify its
>>>> type (e.g. UUID).
>>>>
>>>> When app A tells app B that it wants to establish a connection, it
>>>> does so by application-defined means. E.g. the Subscribe message in
>>>> the spec example.
>>>>
>>>> [RM could define a message CreateConnection, and then relabel
>>>> MakeConnection something like SolicitConnectionMessage, and also
>>>> add a BreakConnection, but that's by the by.]
>>>>
>>>> The connection establishment message has to contain the connection
>>>> identifier, e.g. "UUID X". Where it lives (header, body etc) is up
>>>> to the application contract.
>>>>
>>>> Now, by virtue of having received this identifier, the recipient
>>>> expects that at some future point it will be asked to send messages
>>>> on the back-channel, relating to the identified connection. The app
>>>> connection set-up message instigates behaviour in the RM: something
>>>> like createBackChannelQueue ("UUID X").
>>>>
>>>> A's RM endpoint sends MakeConnection, containing the
>>>> wsrm:ConnectionIdentifier (what is currently called the
>>>> wsrm:Address), and B's RM endpoint either sends an envelope in the
>>>> transfer response (consuming the queue), or sends a simple ack (no
>>>> message to send to A currently).
>>>>
>>>> There is in fact no need to use WS-Addressing because the message
>>>> MakeConnection already communicates the semantic: "send message for
>>>> this connection, if you are ready to".
>>>>
>>>> But, if you want the addressing layer to do its stuff (hold the
>>>> HTTP exchange open) then set MakeConnection [reply endpoint] = WS-A
>>>> anon URI.
>>>>
>>>> The message that is sent on the back-channel does not require any
>>>> identification (no need for WS-A [destination endpoint]) because
>>>> its destination is fixed, and correlates to the author of
>>>> MakeConnection (A), who knows the context. In WS-Addressing terms
>>>> wsa:To is absent, but that's OK because that defaults to anon, so
>>>> the WS-A layer is satisfied).
>>>>
>>>> I think that's all that is required. Ref-params have not been
>>>> mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> Elaborations and problems:
>>>>
>>>> 0) Sequence wsrm:Identifier can also be used to identify the stream
>>>> (is a superimposed synonym for an underlying connection).
>>>>
>>>> 1) A wants to tell B to target all messages for connection X to a
>>>> qualifed anon (one that does specify ref-params, that it, A, has
>>>> authored). It does so by sending a set-up message (like Subscribe)
>>>> that contains a target EPR which is anon + ref-params, /in addition
>>>> to/ the connnection identifier.
>>>>
>>>> When MC comes in for connection X, B sets the ref-params it knows
>>>> are associated with connection X. They are received and processed
>>>> (only by A) in the normal fashion. I can't quite imagine why you'd
>>>> want to do this, but it can be done.
>>>>
>>>> (If you really hate the idea of using something other than an EPR
>>>> to state that a connection is desired, then I don't believe that
>>>> WS-A prohibits, or can meaningfully prohibit, private, app-layer
>>>> contracts on presence, content, meaning and comparability of
>>>> reference-parameters. I think WS-A didn't want to insert complex
>>>> rules about comparison and identity of ref-params at its level. You
>>>> could move the connection identifier into a ref-param, in that
>>>> spirit.)
>>>>
>>>> 2) *Here's the one that bothers me*. I've raised it before, but
>>>> seen no discussion on the point.
>>>>
>>>> [reply endpoint] = anon does not, in my view, mean "response is
>>>> optional". I think, after very careful textual reading of e.g. WS-A
>>>> SOAP Binding, that it means (for that binding) -- there must be an
>>>> envelope in the transfer protocol's response. Why it means that, is
>>>> not clear to me. If that restriction is indeed present, then I
>>>> think it would be reasonable to ask WS-A WG to explain/consider
>>>> change. If I am imagining things, then great -- no problem, WS-A
>>>> anon URI will do the trick. As I have put it before, I think that
>>>> the [reply endpoint] is a hybrid of anon and none -- the receiver
>>>> decides.
>>>>
>>>> Alastair
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marc Goodner wrote:
>>>>> These are some interesting points, but don't they apply equally to
>>>>> the URI as well? Shouldn't the URI be treated as no less opaque?
>>>>> As it is the server has to recognize and deconstruct the URI in
>>>>> order to understand that not only is the client identifying a new
>>>>> queue to poll for messages but also the backchannel required to
>>>>> send those messages on. Doesn't that mean that the RM anon URI
>>>>> identifies two resources rather than one? Is that legal?
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Gilbert Pilz
[mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:37 PM
>>>>> To: Paul Fremantle; Doug Davis
>>>>> Cc:
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm
>>>>> related to use of extended anonymous uri
>>>>>
>>>>> The origins of this go back to a struggle in WS-Addressing between
>>>>> "reference parameters" and "reference properties". Reference
>>>>> parameters are supposed to be opaque to everyone except the minter
>>>>> of the EPR. The proto-usecase is a service consumer disambiguating
>>>>> callback operations by placing unique parameters in its ReplyTo
>>>>> EPRs. Using reference parameters to communicate identity
>>>>> information from the service consumer to the service provider
>>>>> (which is what this idea entails) basically turns them into
>>>>> "reference properties". The problem with reference properties is
>>>>> that there is *no* such thing (the WS-Addressing WG said so).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's ironic that the WS-Addressing WG first said "there is no such
>>>>> thing as reference properties" then turns around and says "maybe
>>>>> you should solve this problem using reference properties".
>>>>>
>>>>> - gp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Paul Fremantle
[mailto:paul@wso2.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:32 AM
>>>>>> To: Doug Davis
>>>>>> Cc:
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm
>>>>>> related to use of extended anonymous uri
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doug
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - rather than looking at the bigger issue of how a new URI
>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>> some specification can compose with WSA's wsaw:Anonymous
>>>>>> URI, the WSA
>>>>>>> WG kept wanting to reexamine whether or not RM's solution was
>>>>>>> the right choice. For example, could WSA's anon+ref-p's be
>>>>>> used instead.
>>>>>> Didn't we discuss this option (anon+refps)? Can you remind me why
>>>>>> we didn't go for it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>



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