[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for i012
Lei, AckRequested is not request/response. I don't see how this helps at all. Cheers, Christopher Ferris STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html phone: +1 508 377 9295 "Lei Jin" <ljin@bea.com> wrote on 08/25/2005 03:12:13 PM: > A request-response MEP used reliably is asynchronous and is basically > composed of two separate one-way MEPs. Thus, there are really no > differences to the oneway case. (there is nothing normally flowing back > on the http response) > > If there is an AcksTo address on the source side that is reachable from > the destination, then use that address. Otherwise, use the not-allowed > EPR for AcksTo which means you can retrieve the Acks through AcksRequest > messages. > > Lei > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 10:24 AM > > To: Lei Jin > > Cc: Marc Goodner; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org; Christopher B Ferris > > 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]