[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Rel YY
Tom Rutt wrote: > Sunil Kunisetty wrote: > > > > > Jacques, > > > > Oracle will be supporting this proposal. However, I prefer that > > SequenceNumber > > be Optional rather than mandatory as you indicated in (P2). I > > understand that it will > > be difficult for schema validation, but I believe it will be much > > simpler and efficient > > for implementations. > > > > So essentially we should categorize all RM into 3 different > > categories based on > > the elements used in RM Headers: > > > > 1) Grouped and Ordered Messages: Group Id + Seq No. + > > Message Order > > > > Same Group Id, Different Seq No. > > > > 2) Grouped and Un-Ordered Messages: Group Id + Seq No. > > > > Same Group Id, Different Seq No. > > > > 3) Discrete & Independent RM Messages: Group Id > > > > We could then use the SequenceNumber sub-element has the toggle > > switch to > > distinguish Grouped Un-ordered with Discrete & Independent messages. An > > implementation could then use 3 different Hash Tables to store the > > IDs, thus > > making DE much more efficient. > > > Do you mean one separate hash table for eacy of the three categories of > message processing in the > above list? Yes. One implementation of RMP could use 3 different hash tables for better DE results. But then again it's an implementation issue which we can't mandate in the spec. > > > > This will be better than having this element and requiring the value > > to be '0' for > > un-ordered grouped messages. > > > > We should strongly recommend in our Spec. that applications such use > > grouped ordered or un-ordered messages as much as possible. > > > > Comments? > > > > -Sunil > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]