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] Proposals for MakeConnection issues summary


Thanks for the clarification. Let me take another look at the flows.

Paul

Doug Davis wrote:
>
> Not at all.  The discussions we had back then were around the failure 
> case when
> the connection was no longer around - I'm talking about the case where 
> the connection
> is still there but its not used to send the response - in particular 
> if it is used to send a CS.
> But this gets into my request from Marc to explain how things work in 
> his proposal because
> I still don't see the message flows for some of the very basic 
> scenarios, see [1].
>
> As for reopening a resolved issue.... some phrase revolving around "a 
> pot" and "a kettle" comes to mind.
> Since PR001 can (should) be closed with no action (there is no 
> composibility issue) I can't think of a
> more blatant attempt to reopen a resolve issue than the current MC 
> threads.
>
> [1] 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200611/msg00011.html
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> __________________________________________________
> STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6906 | dug@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
> *Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>*
>
> 11/15/2006 08:50 AM
>
> 	
> To
> 	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
> 	Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>, "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org" 
> <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject
> 	Re: [ws-rx] Proposals for MakeConnection issues summary
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug
> >  which has still been unanswered and that's the composibility issue of
> > your proposal with WS-Addressing.  In particular how it seems to
> > violate the definition of what anonymous means.  Anonymous is very
> > clearly defined to mean the backchannel of the same connection that
> > carried the request.  I think this needs to be addressed.
> We discussed this at length in the TC and this was not the consensus of
> this group or the WSA experts advising us. The same applies to the
> MC(SequenceID) form which was voted on and approved by this group. Are
> you by any chance trying to raise a resolved issue?? :-)
>
> 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
>
>
>

-- 
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




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