ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i0019 - a formal proposal - take 2
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:22:38 -0400
Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> wrote
on 08/25/2005 02:10:04 PM:
> When a Sequence is closed and there are messages at the RM Destination
> that are waiting for lower-numbered messages to arrive (such
as the
> case when InOrder delivery is being enforced) before they can
be
> processed by the RM Destination's application, the RM Destination
> MUST NOT deliver those messages and a SequenceClosed fault MUST
> be generated for each one.
> <JD> it is important to also say that it should not acknowledge
them either.
If we change it so that it says nothing about those
messages instead,
as Anish and Chris are suggesting, would that be ok
with you?
So, basically, the semantics of undelivered messages
would be undefined by
removing the above paragraph.
thanks,
-Doug
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]