[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposal for i012
Hi Lei, How does your proposal address the scenario where: HTTP is being used, there aren't any intermediaries, it is a request-response WSDL MEP, and the acks are to be sent using the HTTP response (backchannel). In such a case, what should the value of the [address] property of AcksTo EPR be? -Anish -- Lei Jin wrote: > I disagree. Here is a use case that shows a problem with an anonymous > AcksTo. > > Node A ---> Intermediary ---> Node B > > Node A tries to send messages reliably to Node B. For simplicity, let's > assume these are all oneway messages. Node A establishes a reliable > sequence with an anonymous AcksTo and starts to send messages. The > messages first go through the Intermediary which has B's WSDL and > figures out these are oneway messages. So it decides to send back a > http 202 to A and close the connection before forwarding the message on > to Node B. Now Node B gets the message and wants to send back an Ack > synchronously (due to the anonymous Ack). But it can't send the Ack > since the connection between Node A and the Intermediary is already closed. > > Basically the problem is that the introduction of anonymous AcksTo > converts a oneway MEP into a two-way MEP. In order for it to work, all > intermediaries will need to be WSRM aware and keep connections open in > case synchronous acks need to be sent back. > > Proposal: > > * Specifically call out that the anonymous IRI is not to be used in AcksTo. > * AcksTo may take on the value of the "not allowed" IRI, > "_http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/none_". When AcksTo takes on > this value, acknowledgement will only be sent back in response to > AckRequest messages. > > Lei > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:16 PM > *To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org; Lei Jin; Christopher B Ferris > *Subject:* [ws-rx] Proposal for i012 > > I believe Chris Ferris had made a similar proposal earlier but in > the interest of a +1 and trying to move this along I’ll make a more > formal proposal. > > > > Proposal: > > WS-RM was designed to be used with WS-Addressing in which the > behavior of the anonymous URI is defined as an address in an EPR. > There is no requirement that the anonymous URI must be used and > there are valid applications of it, therefore this issue should be > closed with no action >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]