[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] [REL-XX]Proposal for POLL RM-Reply Pattern
> At the Redwood City meeting last May we came to general agreement that > the protocol > requires persistence to work (e.g, persistence of ids for duplicate > elimintation, persistence of > message contents for ordered delivery). However, some users might we > willing to accept > protocol failure under specific circumstances which are agreed witht > the system supplier (e.g, if the battery is not kept charged on a cell > phone, it might loose its "persistence" capability). > > Thus this preagreed limit for persistence time is subject to user > contract, since it involves an > argreement as to what conditions are acceptable for tolerating > protocol failure. > > I hope this helps. I see. That's fine for tolerating protocol failure. Now, the persistence is not only for the purpose of reliable protocol only, but also for the purpose of status query. If I said I support status query, it will be unreasonable for me to delete the persistence, since the spec doesn't indicate a deadline which I can delete the persistence after that.. Am I on the right track? Regards, -Patrick
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]