[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] end-to-end RM option in case of WS-ReliableMessaging
Dale:
some quick responses
back...<JD> From: Moberg Dale [mailto:dmoberg@axway.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:51 PM To: Durand, Jacques R.; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] end-to-end RM option in case of WS-ReliableMessaging Some quick
responses From: Durand,
Jacques R. [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com] Following the end-to-end RM option
for a Push mep in case of
WS-ReliableMessaging: Assumptions: (actually needed
whenever RM sequences are used, regardless of which reliability
specification) - the sender always knows which
messages are for the same destination, even if the decision about what this
destination is (URL) is left to the routing function. A destination is also
supposed to map to a single RM destination (i.e. there are not two RM
Destination modules serving the same business
destination) <Dale> I thought that Pim explicitly stated that knowing where messages go beyond the entry GW is not something the sender should have to know. This would increase management headaches. Why not use some standard metadata for the routing. The protocol requires that the Service and Action and Role values be known. Why not use what the protocol requires for every message?
<JD> you misunderstood: I meant: "which set of messages are intended for a same destination" - never assumed that this destination had to be known by the Sender. But when Sender has to make the decision to send messages over the same RM sequence, that means it knows they are all for the same [RM] destination. - the sender knows what fileds in a
message are used to resolve the routing path, so that a dummy ebMS [user]
message can be crafted to establish the RM sequence prior to sending actual user
messages. Recommendation is: to simply use MPCs as routing
means. <Dale> MPC is not
required in the ebMS header. I want to use required features, either To and From
or Service and Action, not something that is not required for the 1-way PUSH
case. I don’t think we want to make the profile for routing through intermediary rely on an optional information item.
<JD> Fair enough - I meant this recommendation for the user, not for the specification to restrict the routing options. I assume the routing criteria will be configurable and probably mentioned in P-Mode.
Features: Piggybacking of an ebMS
"dummy" message on all RM sequence management
messages. <Dale> Why not create a special ebMS signal message?
<JD> There may be two reasons to prefer a [dummy] user message: (a) unlike signal messages so far, only user messages contain business header data, (b) Core V3 implementations are already capable of sending and processing such messages. On the down side, the current way to indicate a "dummy" is to use a specific value in the Service field, and as you pointed out this rules out using Service in the routing function. No new ebMS signal needs be designed
for this piggybacking : a "dummy" user message has the service field set
to: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-msg/ebms/v3.0/ns/core/200704/service <Dale> What if
they want to use both Service and Action for routing? Or To and From? Not
certain that this meets enduser configuration use cases in
general. which is enough to process it
correctly in core V3, i.e. to NOT deliver it to the MSH consumer layer. (that
way, no additional feature is required from the destination MSH, other than core
V3 compliance). We might want to specify a new Action field value, but no need
to interpret it on receiver side. - teh response RM management
messages need be routed back. Suggest to put the burden of the piggybacking for
these responses on the last MSH intermediary, not on the ultimate MSH who should
not be aware of the RM-thru-intermediaries
aspects. Comments: all this is about using
ebMS intermediaries. Clearly, alternative forms of multi-hop routing can apply
to achieve end-to-end reliable exchanges, such as SOAP intermediaries (non-MSH)
that use WS-addressing wsa:To, wsa;From or
wsa:Action headers. Both styles can co-exist: such SOAP nodes
could be intertwined with MSH intermediaries on a path. We do not specify that
one. In that case, different nodes on a path will use different routing info
(e.g. wsa header vs. ebMS header). Jacques |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]