RE: [wsn] Pull proposal [1.4]

[Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>]

Hi Kirk:
interesting question with respect to
the Pull Point destruction.  However, from the perspective of a NP,
the PullPoint is just another NC.  Do you think that the PullPoint
going away is somehow different than any generic NC suddenly being unavailable
to receive NotificationMessages delivered through the Notify or through
a "raw" message send?

sgg

++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, IBM Software Group, Web services and SOA
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++

"Wilson, Kirk D" <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>

05/20/2005 10:23 AM

To	Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <wsn@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [wsn] Pull proposal [1.4]

Steve,
 
There something that is unclear
to me regarding the proposal as presented in your attachment.  Messages
are to be sent by the NP to the PullPoint through the PullPoint’s Notify
operation.  Upon destruction of the PP, doesn’t the NP need to be
“informed” that messages no longer need to be sent to that PullPoint.
 Shouldn’t that point be made in the proposal, or at least raised
as an implementation issue?  
 
Kirk Wilson
Technical Specialist
603 823 4023
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 12:26 AM
To: wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsn] Pull proposal [1.4]
 

Here is a write up of the Pull Proposal we agreed to.  Please comment
on surprises/accuracy.  I include text that illustrates the scenarios
relating the incoming wrapped and raw messages with the responses to GetMessages
request. 


++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, IBM Software Group, Web services and SOA
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++