Re: [wsrm] What about this tradeoff solution for the persistenceissue?

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Paolo Romano wrote:

>Persistent storage usage is the default mode.
>An apposite <mustpersist="false"/> tag is used when applications do not require
>a crash tolerance reliability level, but only tolerance to transport layer
>failures.
>
Is not "guaranteed delivery" alone, without duplicate elim or ordered 
delivery the only thing
that can be done without persistence?  

We should not put in new parameters which are not needed.

Tom Rutt
Fujitsu

>In case a device which is not able to persist a message receives a message
>without the <mustpersist="false"> element, a fault message MUST be sent in
>response, indicating the inability of the receiver to assure required
>reliability guarantees.
>In that case it is up to the application layer to decide whether to send again
>the same message requiring a lower quality of service.
>
>It seems to me to be very simple, needs only to define two reliability levels:
>             (non-destructive) crash tolerance
>             transport layer (communication channel) failure tollerance
>
>By default <mustpersist="true"> even if not specified since it is the most
>common use case.
>No need for negotiation, reliability level is estabilished by the sender, and
>possibly refused by the receiver.
>..
>And cell phones users (and surely mobile developers too!) will be happy not
>being bothered anymore by disconnections when driving into tunnels!
>
>Comments?
>
>
>--
>Paolo Romano
>
>
>
>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
>  
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133