Re: [wsrm] message headers for Ack and Fault ??

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Tom Rutt wrote:

> Jacques Durand wrote:
>
>> Could someone remind me why we need an RM:MessageHeader element for 
>> Ack and Fault messages?
>> I could not justify this to our implementor Hamid.
>> Such headers could not possibly have a meaning for these signals, as
>> they would have to fully relate to a business response that we want 
>> to be reliable, in case
>> of request-response pattern, or more generally in case these signals 
>> piggy-back on business messages.
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
> If we do not have a business reason to give the response its own 
> identity for WS-relibability protocol, then
> we should do that.
>
> I do not see any requirement in our Requirements document which 
> warrants the Message header for a reply which
> is not itself a reliable message. 

I mistyped here.  What I meant to say is we have to justify the need  
for a unique message ID for the reply, unless itself is piggybacking a 
reliable message in the return direction.   I cannot come up with a 
reason.  The messageID for the request serves for all logging purposes.

>
>
> In fact, this would clarify that a reliable message is one which has a 
> rm:messageHeader.
>
> The response is not a reliable mesage, unless it is using piggybacking.
>
> Lets open a new issue on this one.
>
> Tom Rutt
> WSRM Chair
>


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