RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060 ammendment to current proposal

["Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>]

Hi Gil,

 

If you ask me, the "During the lifetime of the protocol" is the confusing part. This sentence could simply read as follows:

"The following two invariants are required for the correctness of the protocol."

 

On your point about Sequence being a low level construct and the need to keep AS and AD unaware of this construct, I think you are right. However I believe the message number is also a low level construct and the AS and AD need not be aware of the message number construct either.

 

My point is simply that without adding some text for scoping of message numbers on a per Sequence basis, a possible misinterpretation  would be that -  the message number for all the messages exchanged between a pair of AS and AD (irrespective of their Sequence association) would continue to increase by 1 and no two messages (even if they belong to different Sequences) can have the same message number (which is obviously wrong  unless I have misunderstood something big time :-)

 

Thanks,

Sanjay

---

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, Dec 07, 2005 13:19 PM
To: Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060 ammendment to current proposal

This seems to be both redundant and potentially confusing. At this point in the document we are referring to "the protocol" in an abstract sense. The introductory sentence states "During the lifetime of the protocol . . ". A Sequence is a lower level construct for managing the lifetime of "the protocol". The AS and AD need not (and possibly "should not") have any knowledge of the Sequence.

 

- g

---

From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 12:52 PM
To: Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060 ammendment to current proposal

 

On a side note, I think the Sequence scoping of the message numbers should be clear from this invariant.

 

How about:

Replace "For each message that is to be delivered reliably ..."

with "In a Sequence, for each message that is to be delivered reliably ..."

 

Thanks,

Sanjay

---

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, Dec 07, 2005 12:39 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] Issue 060 ammendment to current proposal

The motion currently on the table is to change first invariant under section 2.3 to:

 

The RM Source MUST assign each message to be delivered reliably a message number (defined below) beginning at 1 and increasing by exactly 1 for each subsequent message to be delivered reliably.

 

In http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200511/msg00152.html Chris made the following suggestion for the same text.

 

The RM Source MUST assign each reliable message in the Sequence a message number (defined below) beginning at 1 for the first message sent by the Application Source and increasing by exactly 1 for each subsequent reliable message sent by the Application Source.

 

The intent is to tighten up the contract between the AS and RMS with regards to message numbering.

 

I would like to combine the two proposals into the following:

 

For each message that is to be delivered reliably, the RM Source MUST assign a message number (defined below) beginning at 1 for the first message sent by the Application Source and increasing by exactly 1 for each subsequent message sent by the Application Source.

 

- g