RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE 5: JMS bindingType and atLeastOne intent overlapswith setting JMSDeliveryMode

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Folks,

Thinking about this some more, I feel
that we should keep the JMSDeliveryMode in the schema.

If folks used to JMS are used to setting
this then it does not seem wise to invent something new
and strange for those folks.

The fact that there will be an error
if the delivery mode is non-persistent and one or more of the
reliable messaging intents is used is
not a problem, in my opinion.  At least they will be aware of a 
problem.


Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

"Peshev, Peter" <peter.peshev@sap.com>

10/01/2008 17:58

To	"Michael Rowley" <mrowley@bea.com>, <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
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
>
>
>
>   

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU