RE: [ws-rx] AS need for ordered delivery?

[Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>]

You're missing the point!  If I'm a server, I may have a requirement that
the clients I work with must support ordered delivery.  Thus, I need to know
whether the RMD/AD can support ordered delivery. 

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:57 AM
> To: Gilbert Pilz; Duane Nickull; Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx] AS need for ordered delivery?
> 
> I'm retitling the thread because this issue and AI are closed.
> 
> Why would an AS need to send messages in order if the AD 
> didn't require it? If the AD does need ordering it would 
> request it of the RMD and the AS/RMS shouldn't need to care 
> about the DA in effect as it has been taken care of at the 
> destination.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 8:58 PM
> To: Duane Nickull; Anish Karmarkar; Marc Goodner
> Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
> 
> I'm not sure if asking an RMD what DA it purports to provide 
> is necessarily asking to "see beyond it". If I have an 
> application that relies upon ordered delivery to function 
> correctly and I deploy that service onto an infrastructure 
> with an RMD implementation that can't/won't provide ordered 
> delivery clearly I have made a mistake. The question is do I 
> want that mistake to surface as a exception the first time a 
> client tries to invoke the service (hey dude! this thing 
> can't do ordered delivery!), or would I like the mistake to 
> surface in all sorts of bizarre behaviour by the application?
> 
> - g
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:37 PM
> > To: Anish Karmarkar; Marc Goodner
> > Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
> > 
> > 
> > My sense of the F2F resolution was that the TC wanted to 
> capture the 
> > fact that DAs, timeouts etc were "observed"
> > 
> > Anish:
> > 
> > I do not think they really are unless the RMS can see past the 
> > service.
> > This is bad architecture IMO.  Talk to the interface but 
> don't try to 
> > see beyond it.
> > 
> > D
> > 
> 
>