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
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Gilbert Pilz" <gpilz@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:28:04 -0500
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]