OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsrm] Singleton group with SequenceNumber?




Tony Graham wrote:

> Sunil Kunisetty <sunil.kunisetty@oracle.com> wrote at Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:58:00 -0800:
> > Tom Rutt wrote:
> > > Tony Graham wrote:
> > > >>From off-list mail:
> > > >
> > > >Sunil Kunisetty <sunil.kunisetty@oracle.com> wrote at Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:49:54 -0800:
> ...
> > > >A group of 1 is not valid since the 'status' attribute can't indicate
> > > >both the start and end of a group, and the 'status' value has to be
> > > >'Start' for the first message in a group (line 989):
> > > >
> > > >   The sender node MUST send a very first message, to guarantee the
> > > >   message order, with "Start" for this attribute.
> >
> >  Here is the glitch.  The 'end' message is NOT A MUST for a group to
> >  be complete. As such the group can be terminated (and hence completed)
> >  by other criteria such as group expiry time, max idle duration etc...
>
> groupMaxIdleDuration="0" would terminate the group sometime in the
> next second, yes.

 correct..

>
> Just because it would work doesn't make me think that purposely
> creating groups of 1 is to be recommended.
>

 yes, I think we already say that in the spec., if not, we should say this/

>
> >  So 'end' message is just a convenience. We cannot enforce that every
> >  group MUST only be completed by an 'end' message.
>
> Understood.
>
> > > >...
> > > >
> > > >> Currently there is no way to distinguish a Group with only one message
> > > >> (that uses SequenceNum)  as a Singleton unless Request Header is
> > > >> also changed to reflect something similar.
> > > >
> > > >Then Section 2.3 should be changed or the 'status' attribute should
> > > >allow a 'Single' value (or similar).  At this point I think that it
> > > >would be simpler to change Section 2.3.
> >
> >  I think this is not necessary as I explained above. It may help a
> >  a group of 1 message case, but then it will be very error prone
> >  for other cases.
>
> I think I see your point.
>
> If a sending RMP dies after successfully sending the first message in
> a group and picks a new Group Id when it restarts, that first message
> just became a group of 1.  So groups of 1 can happen even if we
> legislate against them.
>

 correct... that's my whole point.

>
> > > I agree it would be easier to have a singleton group never use the
> > > sequence no in its request.
> >
> >  We really cannot enforce this and atmost can suggest in bold letters
> >  that it is efficient for singleton messages to be without no seq.o.
>
> I think that the spec should make it seem like less of an option.
>

 agree.

>
> > > If this was the case, how would your proposed schema for the
> > > messageReplies look like?
>
> I need to rethink.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony Graham
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Web Products, Technologies and Standards           Phone: +353 1 8199708
> Sun Microsystems                                              x(70)19708
> East Point Business Park, Dublin 3, Ireland
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]