Re: [ws-rx] Issue i066: life without LastMessage (why it's not so bad)

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Doug Davis wrote:

>
> Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> wrote on 11/30/2005 04:44:32 PM:
>
> > ...
> > >
> > The problem is that terminateSequence is not a request response
> > operation. If it had a response, then the rms could resend terminate
> > after some time (with either a positive response or a fault if the
> > sequence is already terminated).
> >
> > This seems to be missing in the current spec.
>
> But this doesn't really have anything to do with the LM marker.

I was responding to the point made by Anish in his emails:

from Anish:
"
Without the LM marker, it will never know if it has received all the 
messages in the Sequence until it receives the TerminateSequence message 
(which is unreliable). "

If the Terminate sequence had a response , I think Anish's concern wold 
go away.

Tom RUtt

> Whether or not the last message was actually tagged with the LM marker
> the RMD would still need to hold on to the exact same amount of
> resources - probably just the Ack state of the sequence.  Nothing
> changes based on the LM marker.  Or am I missing your point?
>
> thanks
> -Doug



-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133