Re: [wsrm] Rel YY

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Tom Rutt wrote:

> Jacques Durand wrote:
>
>> Sunil, Bob,
>>
>> I think your revised proposal is compatible with the concerns that
>> motivated mine.
>>
>>
>> > I prefer MessageOrder (or what ever is the name) sub-element as the
>> > triggering mechanism rather than the value of some attribute or 
>> sub-element
>> > to distinguish the category.
>>
>> I favor this too: more consistent with what we do for ack requested, 
>> dup elimination.
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>
> I really do not care that much, but the messageOrder element, when we 
> took sequenceNumber
> out, had no data but only the status attribute.  By putting the status 
> attribute with the sequenceNumber, we got rid of the now awkward 
> orphaned messageOrder shema structure.
>
> If we are not going to move sequenceNumber back with messageOrder, I 
> think the schema
> we have is more concise.  This is, as always, a matter of style 
> preferences and artistic viewpoints.
>
> Tom Rutt 


New thought, if we could have the messageOrder sub element  have the 
enum value,
first, continue, end.    It would not have any attributes.

This would get over my "orphanedShema" problem.

The sequence number would then also have no attributes.

Would the following make everyone happy:

1) Remove status attribute from sequenceNumber.  Keep sequence number 
optional

2) Place RMOrder sub element in the appropriate header, with the enum 
value (first, continue, end).


>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


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