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: FW: [ws-rx] PR Issue 22: concrete proposal



RMS sent 5 messages, it knows whether or not it got back all 5 acks - it doesn't need an additional "did you get _all_ of my messages" marker when Ack1-5 says the same thing.  From the RMD perspective I still claim there will have to be some application logic/flags that says how many messages are in the "set of messages" that is totally indepdent of RM - because otherwise how did the AD know that there are only 5 messages in the case when RM is not being used at all?  The argument that the application requires this data implies that the scenario will only work when RM is turned on - and I don't buy that.  W.r.t the RMD needing this info - as I said, I think the only case _it_ needs it is when IncompleteSeqBehavior is set to "discardEntireSequence".  All other cases it just becomes interesting (but useless) info.

thanks,
-Doug



"Gilbert Pilz" <gpilz@bea.com>

10/31/2006 02:09 PM

To
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
FW: [ws-rx] PR Issue 22: concrete proposal





Forwarded from Hal . .


From: Hal Lockhart
Sent:
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:48 AM
To:
Gilbert Pilz
Subject:
RE: [ws-rx] PR Issue 22: concrete proposal

 
I think that it is an absolute requirement that a reliable message delivery service provide a mechanism by which both the sender and receiver can determine if all the data has been received or not. Period.
 
I think this is such an obvious, intuitive requirement, that anyone not involved in this debate would immediately agree.
 
{Sir, I am starting a new company called Reliable Package Delivery. For a premium fee, we will deliver packages to you completely undamaged, but we refuse to tell you whether or not you received all the packages we were given which were addressed to you. Can I sign you up as a customer?}
 
The only reason for invoking IncompeteSequenceBehavior, was because an argument had been put forward that somehow knowing if the data was complete or not was “Application Information” and thus out of scope of the spec. The existence of IncompeteSequenceBehavior demonstrates conclusively that the TC does not consider this out of scope. It was never intended as an argument that the only reason you need to know whether or not you got all the data is to decide if you need to invoke the IncompeteSequenceBehavior.
 
Hal
 
 



From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent:
Monday, October 30, 2006 4:28 PM
To:
Gilbert Pilz
Cc:
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
RE: [ws-rx] PR Issue 22: concrete proposal


Well, I think there may need to be text that says.... if IncompleteSequenceBehavior is 'discardEntireSequence' then either Close or Terminate is required - otherwise, as you've noted, the RMD will never be able to send on any messages to the AD.  Any other value of IncompletSeqBehavior doesn't have this requirement though.

thanks,

-Doug


"Gilbert Pilz" <gpilz@bea.com>

10/30/2006 06:55 PM


To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject
RE: [ws-rx] PR Issue 22: concrete proposal

 


   





Doug,

 

W/respect to LastMsgNumber in CloseSequence; I can see your point. I wouldn't object if you ammended our proposal to include LasMsgNumber in CloseSequence.

 

W/respect to TerminateSequence being required; if you ammend our proposal to optionally include LasMsgNumber in CloseSequence, then the requirement to always send TerminateSequence would go away. Clearly if the CS message contains LastMsgNumber then the RMD will have enough information to determine if it received all the messages in the sequence.

 

- gp




From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent:
Monday, October 30, 2006 10:10 AM
To:
Gilbert Pilz
Cc:
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
Re: [ws-rx] PR Issue 22: concrete proposal



Gil,

If we head this route I'd like to see a LastMsgNumber on the Close as well so that we don't need to wait for a TerminateSequence before we can know the final outcome of the Sequence - w.r.t. what we can deliver to the app (ie. incompleteSeqBehvaior).  This would mean that either Close or Terminate would be required based on certain IncompletSeqBehavior values.

Also, on TerminateSequence being required....what does that mean w.r.t. enforcement?  Can we enforce it?  What happens if it not sent? Seems like its only really required for "DiscardEntireSequence" values of IncompleteSeqBehavior, all others can still do their job w/o it, no?  Would it not make more sense to say that its required only when needed by this flag to do its job?
thanks

-Doug

"Gilbert Pilz" <gpilz@bea.com>

10/26/2006 03:48 PM

 


To
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
 
Subject
[ws-rx] PR Issue 22: concrete proposal

 


   






Attached is a proposal for PR i022 in the form of a diff against CD-04.
The main points are:

1.) wsrm:TerminateSequence has been expanded to include a mandatory
LastMsgNumber element the value of which is, surprisingly enough, the
number of the last message in the Sequence.

2.) Sending wsrm:TerminateSequence is now mandatory; basically the whole
thing won't hold together unless the RMS is required to send a
wsrm:TerminateSequence.

<<wsrm-1.1-spec-pr-i022.pdf>>
[attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-pr-i022.pdf" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]



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