Re: [ebxml-msg] Comments on the 1.09 about MessageOrder

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Dan,

In the near term, you are correct that the others are at the transport
level.  I don't know if they all take care about ordering.  Most likely,
they do. As long as the MSG team doesn't provide bindings for any of them,
they are irrelevant anyway.

I answered David's question as best as I could.  I am not really sure what
he was asking.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com> on 12/05/2001 09:16:41 AM

Please respond to Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>

To:    david@drummondgroup.com
cc:    ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:    Re: [ebxml-msg] Comments on the 1.09 about MessageOrder



   Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 07:49:32 -0600
   From: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>

   There are other kinds of RM.  We are explicitly excluding them in the
   case of
   MessageOrder?

Sorry but I'm not catching on.  What you do you mean by "other kinds of
RM"?

Are you talking about the scenario of reliable transports, where we
assume that the transport protocol never drops messages and never
duplicates messages, such as using MQSeries in place of HTTP?
If so, I think we're probably on safe grounds assuming that if
a transport protocol does these things, it also makes sure
that messages arrive in order, so I don't see any problem there.

-- Dan

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>