Re: [wsrm] Rel YY

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

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.
>
We could then use the presence of the SequenceNumber's status attribute 
(an enum with first, more, and last) as the trigger for ordered delivery 
of the sequenced group.

Thus the sequence Number would be optional with an optional status 
attribute.

This does not change our existing syntax, only the semantics.


This way we would not need a separate rm-orderRequested header subelement.

Tom Rutt

> An
>  implementation could then use 3 different Hash Tables to store the 
> IDs, thus
>  making DE much more efficient.
>
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133