[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for i055
From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, Nov 03, 2005 8:54 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposal for i055
-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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]