ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Usage of Ref parms for WS-Reliable Messaging
- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 16:07:20 -0400
+1
Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 377 9295
Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
wrote on 10/05/2006 02:52:49 PM:
> Marc Goodner wrote:
> > This seems to be a discussion of a generic polling model with
no
> connection to RM.
>
> What is that a bad thing?
> Just because RM has this urgent need, does not mean that the solution
> *has* to be RM-specific. It can be, but doesn't have to.
>
> -Anish
> --
>
> > I think the point on MakeConnection Queue below is important
> though. The RM anon URI absolutely requires establishing a queue
> independent of an RM sequence. I'm increasingly troubled by that.
> The two mechanisms we have for MakeConnection do not seem to be able
> to share the same queue. At least the SeqID form uses an existing
RM
> sequence and is clearly about solving RM scenarios.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 1:10 AM
> > To: tom@coastin.com
> > Cc: wsrx
> > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Usage of Ref parms for WS-Reliable Messaging
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > I agree completely.
> >
> > As an aside, the problem with the concept of a resource is that
it is
> > very wide. Looked at with the right mindset, I believe that any
usage of
> > reference parameters could be challenged as referring to a resource.
I
> > personally don't have such a wide "resource view",
with the result that
> > passing a uuid seems a very reasonable usage of a reference parameter.
> > In fact I think that it makes the whole EPR-based polling model
much
> > better. It seemed to me that we decided against this model because
we
> > anticipated issues from the WSA WG, and we got that wrong.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > Tom Rutt wrote:
> >> quoted from 9/28 minutes:
> >>
> >> "
> >> Chris: We are not in agreement. I don't want to use reference
params
> >> because they violate the Web Architecture. WSA WG ignored
TAGs issues.
> >> Paul: I'm not at all in agreement. The reference parameters
are not
> >> used to identify a resource, they are used to identify a
particular RMD.
> >> "
> >>
> >> I think that using a ref parm to identify a MakeConnection
Queue could
> >> be considered application level information associated with
a
> >> particular endpoint address.
> >>
> >> I really think, if we wanted to, we could work out a specification
of
> >> a use of a ref parm, which when added to the generic wsa:anonymous
URI
> >> in the address
> >> field of an EPR, identifies the "make connection"
queue which will
> >> utiize the back channel only when it is appropriate (i.e,
when a make
> >> connection is received with that queue ID).
> >>
> >> What I am trying to say is that only the address is needed
for
> >> dispatching the message to the appropriate location, and
that the a
> >> queueID ref parm could indicate when that anonymous back
channel is
> >> appropriate for use.
> >>
> >> Tom Rutt
> >>
> >
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]