Steve, I guess in the real world NCs will
and do “suddenly” become unavailable. But I would assume that
if a NC destroys a PullPoint it has created, it means that the NC is no longer
interested in getting the messages provided by the PullPoint as opposed to an
NC going down and coming back up. Therefore, I would prefer to use the
word “permanently” become unavailable, rather than “suddenly”.
I would see the lack of notification to the NP in the “permanent”
situation as leaving the NP “high and dry”. I would have
expected a more ‘”friendly” environment in situations where
things are under systematic control.
Kirk Wilson
Technical Specialist
603 823 4023
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Graham
[mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 10:42
AM
To: Wilson, Kirk D
Cc: wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsn] Pull proposal
[1.4]
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/>
++++++++