RE: [wsrm] Rel 44: Duplicate Elimination and Time To Live (TTL)

[Scott Werden <scottw@wrq.com>]

Paolo-

I agree with your description of the fault/ack message flow. I described the
same thing in my email I sent yesterday. The important thing is that WS-RM
may require an additional MEP, beyond the application level MEP defined in
the WSDL, for it to carry out its ACK or fault, but this would be completely
independent of, and would not affect, the application MEP. However, I am not
sure this WS-RM MEP needs to ever be defined in the WSDL.

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paolo Romano [mailto:Paolo.Romano@dis.uniroma1.it] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:02 AM
> To: Sunil Kunisetty; Paolo.Romano@dis.uniroma1.it
> Cc: wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsrm] Rel 44: Duplicate Elimination and Time To 
> Live (TTL)
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >  How does "using the Headers" solution solve the above 
> case? If we have
> >  to send the Fault in Headers (as HeaderFault), that will 
> still result in
> >  sending a SOAP response and the MEP gets altered.
> >
> >  So I fail to understand how the above unresolved case is solved?
> >
> >  -Sunil
> >
> 
> 
> I might be wrong, but my idea is the following: Let's 
> consider the case when an
> existing application has defined a one way MEP in its WSDL. 
> If the application
> layers itself upon WS-RM, the whole WSDL (ws-rm 
> header+app.dependant) should
> still be one-way. If a fault has to be sent back to the ws-rm 
> sender processor,
> this is still possible because the latter has defined a WSDL 
> one-way operation
> for receiving the ack. This message globally alters the MEP 
> and I suppose this
> is what you do not like of this approach.
> Anyway this is a WS-RM level message, not an application 
> level message.
> Therefore, it does not alter the application defined MEP, 
> which is one-way. In
> fact, if the WS-RM receiving processor sends back a fault, 
> then the message is
> not delivered to the application, and the application one-way 
> MEP just does not
> take place.
> 
> In other words, the application defined MEP simply does not 
> take place, because
> the message is stopped at the ws-rm receiver. There is no 
> problem with sending
> back a fault message, because we have defined a ws-rm wsdl 
> one-way operation to
> receive acks and faullts. So we have a one-way only from the 
> ws-rm sender to the
> ws-receiver, followed by an asynch response always at the same layer.
> 
> I do not know if I have been clear, I think my idea could be 
> better explained
> with some pictures but I am overwhelmed with work at the moment...
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Paolo
> 
> 
> --
> 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.ph
p