OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Use Case for having Reliability assurances at finer granularitythan Port Type






Tom

I agree that the current spec doesn't allow that. However, in your use case
below I imagine that the service provider could decide the QoS required per
operation type.

Paul

Paul Fremantle,

STSM, WebServices standards and architecture
Hursley WebServices Team
Consulting IT Specialist
IBM Hursley Lab (MP 189)
 Winchester, SO21 2JN, UK

ph+fax    44 (0) 1962 815 078
int ph: 245 078
pzf@uk.ibm.com
"God, however, has chosen the most perfect world, that is to say the one
which is at the same time the simplest in hypotheses and the richest in
phenomena." Liebniz

Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> on 27/06/2005 22:12:41

Please respond to tom@coastin.com

To:    Paul Fremantle/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc:    wsrx <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject:    Re: [ws-rx] Use Case for having Reliability assurances at finer
       granularity than Port Type


Paul Fremantle wrote:

>
>
>Tom
>
>Is that a correct reading of the specification? I thought that the
>restriction to portType is the WSRM Policy. Since the policy does not
>define the GD, DE, or OD, then this does not affect those. As I understand
>the submitted spec qos's are based on a private contract between the RM
>destination and the application destination, which could well be more
>finely grained than per porttype since it is not defined in the spec or
>policy at all.
>
>
I did not want to put all the details in the first mail, but your
question begs that I bring up one of my
major concerns with the ws-reliable messageing protocol.

The current protocol has no way to have the message sender signal what
reliabilty qos should be applied
to a message.  A simple mechanism, with a indication of the qos level
requested in the create sequence operation
would allow a sender to set up individual sequences for each qos level
required.  If the receiving endpoint does not support the requested
level of Qos, a "not supported feature" fault can be returned.

Currently the spec seems to indicate that an endpoint will apply its own
qos level appropriate with the application.

My point is that the protocol should enable a sender to express
different Qos levels per operation type on an endpoint.

If there is some other way to enable this (eg. policy or wsdl
decorations) I am open for discussion.

I just feel this is a requirement that is not met by the existing protocol.

>Paul
>
>Paul Fremantle,
>
>STSM, WebServices standards and architecture
>Hursley WebServices Team
>Consulting IT Specialist
>IBM Hursley Lab (MP 189)
> Winchester, SO21 2JN, UK
>
>ph+fax    44 (0) 1962 815 078
>int ph: 245 078
>pzf@uk.ibm.com
>"God, however, has chosen the most perfect world, that is to say the one
>which is at the same time the simplest in hypotheses and the richest in
>phenomena." Liebniz
>
>Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> on 27/06/2005 21:59:49
>
>Please respond to tom@coastin.com
>
>To:    wsrx <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
>cc:
>Subject:    [ws-rx] Use Case for having Reliability assurances at finer
>       granularity than Port Type
>
>
>
>The current WS-reliable messaging contribution does not support the
>application of reliability quality of service
>at a finer granularity than port type.
>
>I provide an example interface definition (which would map to a WSDL
>port type)
>
>Interface (Broker){
>
>Operation Buy(in AccountNo, in StockName, in NumberOfShares):
>Operation Sell(in AccountNo, in StockName, in NumberOfShares);
>Operation UpdateInfo(in AccountNo, in CustomerAddress, in
CustomerPhoneNo);
>Operation query (in AccountNo, out SequenceOf {StockName, NumberOfShares}
>}
>
>Buy and Sell need to be protected for guaranteed delivery, duplicate
>elim, and ordered delivery.
>
>UpdateInfo only needs to be protected for guaranteed delivery (it is
>idempotent).
>
>Query needs no reliability Qos.
>
>the query operation would not use ws-reliability at all.
>
>
>For this use case, the sender should be able to set up two Reliability
>message sequences,
>one with all qos enabled,
>the other with only Guaranteed delivery enabled.
>
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------
>Tom Rutt           email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
>Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt           email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133






[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]