RE: [ebxml-msg] Pim on routing intermediaries, WS-ReliableMessaging

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Dale,

I'm not sold on WS-Reliable messaging - for starters its merely trying to mimick what ebMS already has for the past five years!

Then - who knows what oversights they've made in the rush to get something in place. Reading their design and such does not give me great confidence. My sense is we are well ahead of them - and they should be adopting ebMS reliable messaging (and actually they are trying to clone most of it!!!)  Of people using WS the majority could not careless about reliable delivery - in fact their whole modus operandi is built assuming unreliable messaging and instant traffic exchanges (query/response).

OK - so where does that leave us?

Why can we not look at some kind of orchestration agent here?  Seems to me that what is needed is a very simple component that is tasked with plugging the gap and acting as an ebMS/SOAP delivery extension agent.  All it has to be able to do is manage SOAP-based exchanges at the basic transport level.  If its built very dumb and simple - it just acts as a relay and a pass through - with minimal logic - mostly just leveraging SOAP acks and errors themselves.

The ebMS then interacts with one or more of these SOAP relay agents - and will keep trying delivery until it gets an end-to-end SOAP acknowledgement relayed back to it.

The agent could be designed to use basic WS - and in fact then any SOAP server could be integrated as a delivery service with the simple addition of the agent component.  This seems much more like what we want.  Coopting delivery via SOAP servers.

DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [ebxml-msg] Pim on routing intermediaries,
> WS-ReliableMessaging
> From: "Moberg Dale" <dmoberg@axway.com>
> Date: Mon, November 19, 2007 3:32 pm
> To: "Pim van der Eijk" <pvde@sonnenglanz.net>,  "Durand,  Jacques R."
> <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>,  <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> [Pim explained the conflict between WS-ReliableMessaging and the
> advantages in using routing intermediaries.]
> 
> The main options for dealing with the conflict are 
> 
> 0. Use WS-Addressing anonymous for reply-to and acks-to, and have all
> intermediaries wait before their HTTP reply is made.
> [The above does not scale well, is brittle, and utilizes lots of
> resources.]
> 
> 1. Use piggybacking (and presumably 1 message long sequences?).
> [Still lacks routing advantages. RMSes have to target RMDs, and so have
> high lifecycle configurability burdens. Routing intermediary topology
> cannot be changed while leaving RMS configuration unchanged. Probably
> destroys advantages of ebMS routing intermediary, as Pim explained.]
> 
> 2. Locate RMD at routing intermediary, and check security at
> intermediary also.
> [ Loss of end to end reliability.]
> 
> 
> Pim has convincingly explained how WS-ReliableMessaging is not very
> intermediary friendly and, along with Jacques, reflects a step backwards
> in trying to accommodate intermediaries with end-to-end acknowledgments.
> However, the goal of WS-* technology level convergence seems to require
> that we support WS-ReliableMessaging because it is the WS-I sanctioned
> solution.
> 
> Is option 2 above an option that could be embellished to be
> satisfactory? What would it take? Add on an ebBP/RN style
> ReceiptAcknowledgment or ReceiptAcknowledgmentException (if we wanted to
> be optimistic with respect to WS-ReliableMessaging terminated at
> intermediary working most of the time?)
> 
> Just some reactions. Good analysis Pim!
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php