RE: [ws-rx] PR022: updated proposal

["Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>]

So:

1.) If you send a CS, then it must have a LastMsgNumber.

2.) If you send a TS, then it must have a LastMsgNumber.

What if you don't send either a CS or a TS? Somehow we need to restore
the "must-ness" that was associated with LastMsg.

- gp

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 10:46 AM
> To: Gilbert Pilz
> Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR022: updated proposal
> 
> What about saying it MUST appear in CS and TS, and the number 
> in TS MUST be the same as was in CS?
> Paul
> 
> Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> > Logically if LastMsgNumber appears only in TS then sending 
> a TS is a 
> > MUST. This isn't to say that an RMD that, for whatever 
> reason, doesn't 
> > care about LastMsgNumber can't clean up a sequence after CS.
> >  
> > - gp
> >
> >     
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >     *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> >     *Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2006 2:57 PM
> >     *To:* Gilbert Pilz
> >     *Cc:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> >     *Subject:* Re: [ws-rx] PR022: updated proposal
> >
> >
> >     Gil,
> >       I understand your concerns with adding it to the Close but I
> >     still think it would be nice if we could find a way to do it -
> >     forcing a sequence to wait for a Terminate after a 
> Close before it
> >     can complete it works (in some configurations).  Also, 
> I may have
> >     missed the "MUST" but I don't think the Terminate is required to
> >     be sent - the RMS may choose to just let the Sequence timeout.
> >     Wouldn't this cause an interop issue - because the RMD 
> may not get
> >     this new info that we've now added to the TS message and also
> >     because the IncompletSeqBahvior can't do its job (when set to
> >     DiscardEntireSeq) w/o it?
> >     -Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >     *"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>*
> >
> >     11/03/2006 12:59 PM
> >
> >     	
> >     To
> >     	<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >     cc
> >     	
> >     Subject
> >     	[ws-rx] PR022: updated proposal
> >
> >
> >
> >     	
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     The attached update incorporates the Chris and PaulF's feedback.
> >
> >     A number of people have said that they would like to 
> see LastMsgNumber
> >     in CloseSequence as well. While I'm somewhat 
> sympathetic to this idea,
> >     from my point of view it adds a lot of complication to 
> the spec for
> >     little benefit. We have to say that LastMsgNumber must appear in
> >     either
> >     CS or TS and possibly both. If it appears in both CS 
> and TS then the
> >     values have to agree (we might need to define a new 
> fault to cover the
> >     case where they don't agree). We'd have to say that if 
> you include
> >     LastMsgNumber in CS then you didn't necessarily have to send the
> >     TS, but
> >     that if you didn't include LastMsgNumber in CS (or 
> didn't send a CS)
> >     then you *do* have to send a TS with LastMsgNumber, etc.
> >
> >     - gp
> >
> >     <<wsrm-1.1-spec-pr-i022.pdf>>
> >     [attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-pr-i022.pdf" deleted by Doug
> >     Davis/Raleigh/IBM]
> >
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
>