[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 finergranularity than Port Type
comments inline: Christopher B Ferris wrote (Chronologically re-ordered): >If we have 4 nodes: A, B, C and D with D serving as the Destination >and A, B and C serving as the Source of messages to the service >offered at D, why would A choose a quality of service different than >B and/or C? > DN - Can't think of a single reason. This has always been a gripe even in HTTP, TCP/IP etc. Why would anyone opt for the slacker mode of operation? Even if they did, the resource requirements to detect, then enforce it would likely add an element of unpredictability that makes it all moot. If A,B, C send a request that all arrive at once (highly unlikely), D would have to look up QoS for each then calculate forward chaining. Bah!! > Wouldn't it be FAR more likely that D would effect a >consistent QoS (again, as a contract between its RM Destination and >its Application Destination roles) that A, B and C would avail themselves >of when using the RM protocol? Keep in mind that the protocol is the same >as perceived on the wire regardless of QoS effected at the destination >endpoint. > > DN - having skimmed over the submitted materials, I find your logic ... well logical. >Can someone come up with a valid use case that would require the ability >of the Source endpoint to assert the QoS on the part of the Destination >where the QoS itself would likely vary from one Source endpoint to >another? > > DN - not me. "Frankly, I don't get this requirement at all. Maybe it's my nature to rebel when someone tells me what to do <SNIP>" Yeah - I noticed that but we're still buds, right? <duck> ;-) Duane
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]