OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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


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

Fact is, regardless if some agreement is needed about the DA to be used, InOrder is one of those DAs that actually *always* requires *both* parties to do a bit more than just using the protocol, meaning both AS/RMS and RMD/AD contracts. Here is why:

For a "message to be delivered in the order it was sent", two conditions are required:
1-the message must be transmitted (by RMS) in the order it was sent (by AS)  (or at least, must be "sequence-numbered" in this order )--> contract RMS/AS

2- the message must be delivered  (to AD) in the order it was received (by RMD) --> contract RMD/AD.

So far the focus has been on the Destination side, which is the one doing most of the legwork to achieve this. But the Source side must also do its part in supporting InOrder.

Now I believe that a specification only concerned with protocol RMS-RMD does not have to worry about this, but a spec detailing the DAs will have to.

Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:04 AM
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Gilbert Pilz; Duane Nickull; Anish Karmarkar
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] AS need for ordered delivery?

I find that statement confusing. The AS/RMS is the client. It doesn't
really matter whether it is running on a phone, pc, or a 24 way server.

Are you trying to say that because the client is running on a particular
type of server class hardware or maybe within an application server it
has requirements of the RMD/AD it wants to enforce? Why would you make
the blanket requirement that all services you consume from a client
running within either of these types of servers enforce a particular DA?

Or are you trying to say that the client is a mission critical app
(hardware or runtime environment really unimportant to the scenario)? So
why would the DA of what is in effect at the RMD/AD be needed here
either? I don't see a case for some sort of dynamic configuration and
selection of services the client would consume in this type of
application. I would see carefully selected services running in an
environment with SLAs formally agreed upon by the parties on either
side. So here I could see the topic coming up, but not when the service
is invoked.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:31 AM
To: Marc Goodner; Gilbert Pilz; Duane Nickull; Anish Karmarkar
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] AS need for ordered delivery?

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
> >
>
>



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]