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] MessagePending



Yup.  Since wsa:From has never really been used much its a bit of an open question.
The good thing is that it is defined as the "source endpoint" which is what we want.
The bad thing is that other specs have been free to define when some of these various
headers should appear and what they mean - so we could be bumping into someone
else's usage.  If we could guarantee that our usage of it was exactly what WSA intended
then we'd be ok - I think.
thanks,
-Doug



Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>

10/08/2006 02:44 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject
Re: [ws-rx] MessagePending





Doug

This would be kind of cool, but I'm slightly concerned what impact it
might have on various implementations. The MakeConnection call primes
the RMD to "expect" a pending message on the response. But I'm not
convinced it isn't doable. I'd like to get my implementation team's input.

Paul

Doug Davis wrote:
>
> Anish,
>   I don't think I was clear.  My pondering wasn't about the
> MakeConnection message but rather about some other message - like some
> application message.  If the client just happens to be sending a
> one-way to the server and there's no response (its a one-way) then I
> was wondering if the server could use the wsa:From/wsa:Address value
> (if its set to RManonURI) to look for messages to send on that empty
> back-channel.  Thus saving the overhead of the client having to send
> another MakeConnection.
> thanks
> -Doug
>
>
>
> *Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>*
>
> 10/06/2006 01:51 PM
>
>                  
> To
>                  Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
>                  ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject
>                  Re: [ws-rx] MessagePending
>
>
>
>                  
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug Davis wrote:
> >
> > Would we always be able to know it though?  When the MessagePending
> > header flows as a result of the MakeConnection there's a "query
> > expression" associated with the MakeConnection.  In cases where the
> > message on the transport request flow was not a MakeConnection then I'm
> > not sure what value the server would use to determine if there are
> > messages pending - i.e. what "query expression" would it use to do the
> > check?  Interestingly enough, I have been recently wondering if we
> could
> > use the wsa:From header for this purpose.  If a one-way message was on
> > the transport request flow, and since its a one-way there was no
> > response, could the server look at the wsa:From, and if it used the RM
> > anon URI, use that as an optimized MakeConnection?
>
> Can you elaborate on this?
>
> What/which information in the pending messages can the server use to
> figure out which message to send, if the sender identifying information
> is in the wsa:From of MakeConnection?
> If only wsa:To was an EPR (sigh).
>
> -Anish
> --
>
> >  In other words, does
> > wsa:From identify the sender?  WSA would seems to say 'yes'.  This
> could
> > save the overhead of another message exchange in some cases.  Good
> thing
> > WSA didn't kill wsa:From like they were thinking.  :-)
> >
> > thanks,
> > -Doug
> >
> >
> >
> > *Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>*
> >
> > 10/05/2006 06:32 PM
> >
> >                  
> > To
> >                  "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org"
> <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > cc
> >                  
> > Subject
> >                  [ws-rx] MessagePending
> >
> >
> >                  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rereading the spec around MakeConnection, I realize that we defined
> > MessagePending as only applicable on a message flowing back on a
> > MakeConnection backchannel. It seems to me that we could usefully add
> > this message in cases where a response is flowing on a back channel.
> >
> > For example. Suppose I have an interaction
> >
> > 1. GET1 ----->
> > <---- RESPONSE1
> >
> > 2. GET2----->
> > (response lost)
> >
> > 3. GET3----->
> > <------RESPONSE3
> >
> > In 3, the Get will have an ack for response1, and the server can
> > indicate that response 2 is missing.
> >
> > We already have logic to decide when piggybacking of acks is
> > appropriate. I believe the logic could be extended to decide when it was
> > ok to send back a MessagePending header:
> >
> > * In the sequenceID case, it would be appropriate whenever the message
> > being sent back was part of the same Offered response sequence.
> > * In the URI case, it would be appropriate whenever the replyTo URI
> > matched the MessagePending URI.
> >
> > Paul
> >
>



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