Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Relationship of ISSUE 008 with ISSUE 021
You can attach policies at the binding level.
This allows you to do what you want.
<JD> mmmh... rmpolicy says at wsdl:binding level. that seems to only allow port-level granularity.
But there are other problems. As I see it, the
binding (or message) definition is for the messages
in the sequence - not the framing messages such as
CreateSequence, CreateSequenceResponse, Ack, etc.
So if we attach a QoS policy to the binding, which
messages does it apply to?
<JD> clearly not to these "protocol-signaling" messages, which are not exposed in WSDL. But I do not see a problem here - unless you want them to be reliable too? (I think there is a consensus that they don't need to - e.g. if a CreateSequence "fails" , an RMS may always decide to resend a new one. And if a stand-alone Ack is lost, subsequent ones will make-up.)
All the best, Ashok
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rutt [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 8:23 AM
> To: wsrx
> Subject: [ws-rx] Relationship of ISSUE 008 with ISSUE 021
> The Sept 2004 version of WS-policy attachment includes the following
> 4.1.4 Message Policy Subject The following WSDL/1.1 elements
> are used to describe messages:
> . wsdl:message
> . wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input
> . wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output
> . wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault
> . wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input
> . wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output
> . wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault
> The current WS-RM policy spec attaches policy at the endpoint
> subject level.
> If we could attach the Qos policy for DA at the message
> subject level, we would be in a better position to express
> the desired semantics for Reliability of a WSDL
> Request/response operation.
> For example, exactly once, ordered could be attached to the
> request message, while no reliability qos is attached to the response.
> Other examples could attache reliability DA levels to the
> response message as well.
> Thus I now see that Issue 008 on granularity of reliability
> policy attachment, and Issue 021 on reliability for two way
> exchanges should be discussed together.
> Tom Rutt
> Tom Rutt email: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133