[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE 5: JMS bindingType and atLeastOne intent overlaps with setting JMSDeliveryMode
Hi Michael, In today's binding call we discussed the issue, and there was an idea to resolve that issue by the original proposal (dropping the JMSDeliveryMode from the schema) and relying entirely on intents. (Probably new intent for non-persistent messages) It seems that you preferred earlier (as in the mail below) to keep the binding configuration possibilities, and define the conflict as an error. Would you agree to such a suggestion -- drop the JMSDeliveryMode ? Best Regards Peter -----Original Message----- From: Michael Rowley [mailto:mrowley@bea.com] Sent: Monday, 8. October 2007 18:22 To: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE 5: JMS bindingType and atLeastOne intent overlaps with setting JMSDeliveryMode I think this is a great issue. I believe that the spec should say that if there is a conflict between a required intent and the semantics associated with a binding configuration, then it should be a deployment error. In the case of the JMS specification, specific potential conflicts, such as the one described here, should be defined. Michael -----Original Message----- From: Eric Johnson [mailto:eric@tibco.com] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:36 PM To: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [sca-bindings] ISSUE 5: JMS bindingType and atLeastOne intent overlaps with setting JMSDeliveryMode Logged as http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-5 Peshev, Peter wrote: > TARGET: > JMS Binding Specification Version 1.1, Working Draft 25 September 2007 > > > DESCRIPTION: > > The current bindingType of the jms is defined as : > > <bindingType type="binding.jms" alwaysProvides="jms" > mayProvide="atLeastOnce atMostOnce ordered conversation"/> > > Not being at all policy expert and under the assumption that > "mayProvide" is supposed to indicate - ("in some scenarios when the > binding is used, this may be provided, the assembler by supplying > intents can influence the runtime behavior of the binding"), here is the > question : > > The semantics of atLeastOnce is actually having persistent messages over > a queue, and persistent messages + durable subscriptions over topic. > If that can be configured by intents by the assembler, doesn't it > overlap with the setting of JMSDeliveryMode in the schema of the JMS > binding ? Which one wins in case of conflict ? > > > PROPOSED SOLUTION > Drop JMSDeliveryMode from the schema > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]