[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: comments and ideas
I am sending you some ideas and comments about the WS-reliability specification and Nokia Web Services Reliabilty document recently sent in the TC list. 1) Sending one acknowledgment for every single message exchanged results in a not minimal overhead, expecially if you keep into account XML verbosity. The natural, definitely not original solution is allowing a single acknowledgment for multiple messages. Did you see any other advantages, apart from implementation simplicity, in a one-one relation between message and ack? One issue may be that IBM&MS (et co.) WS-Reliable Messaging already proposes a similar mechanism, just like TCP does with well-known "sliding windows". I hope that neither TCP's authors, nor IBM & Microsoft will start a legal action if this TC should choose an analogous mechanism. 2) Also keeping on re-sending the same message as long as an acknowledgment is received is an expensive mechanism, whose advantage is simplicity, but which may lead to severe overheads in case of loss of acknoledgments for large messages. One solution may be defining an apposite "inquiry" message, which could be sent in case of failure suspect by any indoubt part. Note that such a message could also be useful in order to ensure end-hosts state synchronization: e.g. it could be used in a request-response mep to let the requester acknowledge the responder upon the receiption of the response message (see pag.10 Nokia_WebServicesReliability "Because Responder depends on Step 6, MEP must be extended for delivering information to Responder after step 4.") What do you think about it? Comments about Nokia document 1 - pag 5: Instead of "physical machine failure" I would rather say " host and network failures". Reliable messaging needs to deal with network errors as well as crashes. 2- pag.5 "State synchronization: If the MEP is cancelled for any reason then it is desirable for both nodes to set their state as if there were no communication between the parties." My idea of state synchronization in the messaging context is ensuring that both parties are eventually informed about the delivery of every exchanged message. IMO this idea captures the meaning of the requirement at pag.10, Guaranteed delivery for Request-Response MEP, "Because Responder depends on Step 6, MEP must be extended for delivering information to Responder after step 4." 3 - pag.13, I appreciate the proposal of distinguishing different levels of crash tolerance, as the availability of persistent storages on embedded mobile devices is not so common, yet. If I correctly understand what you mean for "replay" below in this page, I would rather say "possible delivery duplication- at most once delivery", or "no duplication - exactly once delivery". 4 - I believe that having several specifications around for reliable messaging may only confuse ultimate users and therefore slow down the Web-Services market. My (naive) hope is that since this is the first proposal for a WS Reliable Messaging Protocol to have been submitted to a standardization organization, any other alternative idea or proposal is openly discussed, compared and possibly integrated within this protocol. On the other hand I see that Web Services and ebXML model are currently not interoperable, but I look forward for hearing any idea about the possible integration of the 2 messaging protocols. I think that a common ground does exist between ebXML MS and WS-RM and I am a supporter of future collaborations with the ebXML MS TC. First of all because the ebXML MS is a mature protocol which can not simply be ignored by this TC, second because I think the overlapping between the 2 protocols should be clear to everybody. Moreover, I think it would be a strenght for this protocol to be possibly integrated into a wider context, i.e. ebXML. My personal opinion about the possible integration between ebXML MS and WS-RM is to use a modular approach: WS-RM should clearly define the interface to the supported messaging features. Such functionalities are also required (and actually already provided) by ebXML MS. This way WS-RM could be used as it is in Web Services scenarios and as a module of ebXML-MS in the ebXML context. Best Regards, Paolo Romano Rome University La Sapienza Italy
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]