[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo
Shimamura-san, I'd have to think about that. Since the acknowledgment is a SOAP header, they can certainly be coresident in a message... I certainly wouldn't do it this way. What do others think? Cheers, Chris SHIMAMURA Masayoshi wrote: > > Chris, > > Thank you for showing intention of the deliveryReceipt. I have one > question. > > In the Message Service spec V1.0, "10.3.3 Generating an Acknowledgement > Message" on page 46 says: > > Depending on the value of the syncReply parameter, the > Acknowledgement Message can also be sent at the same time as the > response to the received message. ... > > It means that if syncReply is set to False, the Reliable Acknowledgement > Message can not carry business level response. If so, at same time, the > Reliable Acknowledgement Message can not carry deliveryReceipt element > when syncReply is set to False. Because deliveryReceipt element is > always carried together business level response. > > If the understanding above is correct, following description in the > specification is wrong: > > 8.15 Combining ebXML SOAP Extension Elements > ... > 8.15.8 Delivery Receipt element > A DeliveryReceipt element may be present on any message. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Actually, when syncReply is set to False, DeliveryReceipt element can > not be present on Reliable Acknowledgement Message. > > Is that correct? > > On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 00:58:29 -0400 > christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> wrote: > > David, > > > > I don't know what you're smoking. As for the history lesson, thanks, > > but I was there. > ... > > The spec clarifies the distinction between the delivery receipt > > and the acknowledgment in section 8.4.7.1. To wit: > ... > > Note: To clarify the distinction between an acknowledgement message > > containing a DeliveryReceipt and a Reliable Messaging Acknowledgement: > > (1) An acknowledgement message containing a Delivery Receipt > > indicates the To Party has received the message. (2) The Reliable > > Messaging Acknowledgment indicates a MSH, possibly only an > > intermediate MSH, has received the message." > > I'd like to propose that we change the term "(1) acknowledgement message" > into "(1) business level response". It seems to me that this is source > of the confusing about DeliveryReceipt. > > Regards, > > -- > SHIMAMURA Masayoshi <shima.masa@jp.fujitsu.com> > TEL:+81-45-476-4590(ext.7128-4241) FAX:+81-45-476-4726(ext.7128-6783) > Planning Dep., Strategic Planning Div., Software Group, FUJITSU LIMITED > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
begin:vcard n:Ferris;Christopher tel;cell:508-667-0402 tel;work:781-442-3063 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XTC Advanced Development adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:chris.ferris@east.sun.com title:Sr. Staff Engineer fn:Christopher Ferris end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC