Re: [ws-rx] Proposal for i055

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

-1

I don't see a need for the InactivityTimeout
to apply to the RMS. It is free to discard/terminate
a Sequence whenever it wants to do so.
I am preparing an alternate resolution to i055, but 
we're still circling the wagons internally.

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

"Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
wrote on 11/02/2005 04:48:57 PM:

> Issue i055: 
> This proposal is to resolve i055[1] based on
the clarification that 
> we propose for resolution of Issue i054 [2]. 
> We observe that although the InactivityTimeout
should be specified 
> by the RMD in the policy, it should be possible for RMS to align its
> own inactivity timeout with respect to RMDs specification of the timeout.

> In this regard, we propose to modify the definition
of 
> InactivityTimeout which is currently a single value. Instead, we 
> propose that RMD should specify the InactivityTimeout to be a range
> of values, with a lower and upper bound as well as a default value.
> We think that this change will allow RMS to be able to configure the
> IT to be able to send messages in an appropriate interval to the 
> RMD, still complying with the configuration of the RMD. How this 
> particular configuration may be addressed will be the subject of a
> subsequent message as it is a separate issue (i056 [3])
> We propose to add the following two attributes
to the definition of 
> InactivityTimeout at Line 158 [4] and move the specified value as
> the content value of the element as follows:
> Remove the lines 154-155 [4] 
> { 
> /wsrmp:RMAssertion/wsrm:InactivityTimeout/@Milliseconds 
> The inactivity timeout duration, specified in milliseconds. 
> } 
> Replace the lines 151-153 with 
> {/wsrmp:RMAssertion/wsrm:InactivityTimeout 
> A parameter that specifies a period of inactivity for a Sequence.
If
> omitted, there is no 
> implied value. The value of the element indicates the default 
> inactivity timeout duration in milliseconds. 
> } 
> Add the lines: 
> {/wsrmp:RMAssertion/wsrm:InactivityTimeout/@minValue
> A parameter that specifies a minimum value of inactivity for a 
> Sequence. If omitted, there is no 
> implied value. This attribute is only present when the @maxValue is
present. 
> /wsrmp:RMAssertion/wsrm:InactivityTimeout/@maxValue 
> A parameter that specifies a maximum value of inactivity for a 
> Sequence. If omitted, there is no 
> implied value. 
> } 
> You probably noticed that we are also pointing
out a small 
> problem/anomaly in the specification, where the values are specified
> by attributes (i.e @Milliseconds attribute) instead of element 
> content. We propose that the definition of the InactivityTimeout to
> be changed so that it should be using the value of the element 
> instead of the attribute. Further, minValue and maxValue attributes
> are used to define a range. 
> If the TC wishes to retain the usage of attribute
values instead of 
> element content as proposed, it may be retained along with minValue
> and maxValue proposal we are making. However, we really want to know
> the rationale for which the values are specified as attributes 
> instead of elements contrary to the general practice used today with
XML. 
> 
> Thanks. 
> --umit 
> [1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i055
> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i054
> [3] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i056
> [4] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
> php/14986/wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-01.pdf 
> 
> ---------------------- 
> Dr. Umit Yalcinalp 
> Standards Architect 
> NetWeaver Industry Standards 
> SAP Labs, LLC 
> umit.yalcinalp@sap.com 
> Tel: (650) 320-3095