Re: [ws-rx] PR016 proposals

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

Maybe we can clear this up by defining
a term for a Nack message. None can be easily 
addressed if we do this by qualifying
that it applies to an RMD that has accepted messages.
An RMD that has yet to accept a message
for a Sequence would issue a None.

I disagree that simply omiting this
clears things up.

Cheers,

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

Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com> wrote on 11/01/2006
07:16:53 AM:

> [Within every Acknowledgement Message it issues, the RM Destination
MUST 
> include one or more
> AcknowledgementRange child elements that contain, in their collective
> ranges, the message
> number of every message accepted by the RM Destination. The RM 
> Destination MUST exclude, in
> the AcknowledgementRange elements, the message numbers of any messages
> it has not
> accepted.]
> 
> The second invariant in section 2.3 is wrong, since it doesn't allow
> Nack, or None
> 
> I propose we simply delete this paragraph. I tried rewriting it about
3 
> times but never managed to capture it without about a gazillion subclauses.
> 
> Paul
> 
> -- 
> Paul Fremantle
> VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2 
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> 
> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> paul@wso2.com
> (646) 290 8050
> 
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> 
>