RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Is an implementation supporting a smaller max message number valid? [Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Max message number in policy]

["Abbie Barbir" <abbieb@nortel.com>]

Duane,

+1


Abbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:38 PM
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Is an implementation 
> supporting a smaller max message number valid? [Re: [ws-rx] 
> NEW ISSUE: Max message number in policy]
> 
> 
> Abbie:
> 
> I see 3 relatively minor sub-issues:
> 
> 1. When profiles, interop tests are written, the authors of those 
> probably need to acknowledge that there should be no 
> requirement for an 
> implementer to be forced to handle the currently largest 
> maximum number, 
> since none of us would. 
> 2. What is a realistic number that *should* be supported to meet 
> conformance/compliance requirements or interop scenarios?  I 
> presume a 
> rollover test should be in the interop tests.
> 3.  If a specific implementation handles less than the unsigned or 
> signed long, how to they declare such or do they simply forward a 
> rollover?  I think you and I are agreeing that there needs to be a 
> declaration capability.
> 
> Duane
> 
> 
> Abbie Barbir wrote:
> 
> >I really do not see the problem here.
> >
> >the size of long allows 9 quintillion, that is fine, agree 
> with Chris, 
> >most of us will die before the number is exahusted in a session.
> >
> >However, an RM can choke on other factors, such as avilable buffers 
> >etc. as opposed to the size limits.
> >
> >At the end of the day, it should be able to state its limitations.
> >
> >Abbie
> >
> >>    
> >>
> 
>