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] Issues 050, 052, DAs in general, and who's DA is it anyway?


I am not sure that is true.  If the AS knows that a reliable protocol is in use, then it knows that a level of assurance appropriate to the needs of AD is supported.  Remember it is the AD that needs to do something with the messages when it gets them.  I would not presume to impose constraints of the AD and its relationship with RMD.  DA s do NOT reflect any actual delivery to the AD nor of any processing by the AD, just how the RMD *might* deliver messages to the AD.  If the particular AD, for example, has other means of dealing with message ordering, why is it any concern to the AS.  AS and AD switch roles on each half of a “reliable exchange”

Besides, if there were no DA s, then the reliable behavior would be implicit, thus the AS should be satisfied if it might care for some unfathomable reason.

-bob

 


From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:29 AM
To: Bob Freund-Hitachi; [WS-RX]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issues 050, 052, DAs in general, and who's DA is it anyway?

 

The RMS doesn't care what the DA is, but the AS does.

 

- g

 


From: Bob Freund-Hitachi [mailto:bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:44 AM
To: [WS-RX]
Subject: [ws-rx] Issues 050, 052, DAs in general, and who's DA is it anyway?

Das are a miss-feature, an unnecessary complication, the cause of too much grief, inherently ugly, the source of too much debate, and begging to be profiled away.

 

I am having extreme confliction over the role, intention and value of delivery assertions as they are being discussed in relation to several issues current and past.

The intention of the protocol, as I see it, is merely to define a mechanism whereby a sender transfers messages to a receiver in such a manner that the sender understands that responsibility for the message’s ultimate delivery has been passed from the RMS to the RMD.

The transfer of responsibility is one way only, and that a reliable exchange of request and response requires that each end of an exchange perform both RMS and RMD roles.

 

I fail to understand why the RMS might care what Das are offered, since Das effect the behavior of the RMD to AD interaction and only incidentally the pattern of events on the wire.

 

Assuming the AD and AS may be independently developed and designed to fulfill their individual purposes, what business does the RMS have in understanding the AD to RMD contract.  The AD may be implemented to care or not to care about ordering, exactly once, at most once, at least once and so forth.  I assume competence on the part of the authors of AD.  It is quite conceivable, that the authors of DA might employ algorithms insensitive to order or duplication.

 

I would rather that all of these Das be eliminated entirely, and that the RMD be specified to operate in one way only.  If a vendor chooses to implement Das, they are a contract between AD and RMD only, and as such may exist in the API of the offered RMD and thus safely outside of the scope of this specification and the charter of the WG.

 

I can imagine a TCP analogy to this discussion.  Would we rather have TCP endpoints that optionally reassembled message fragments?  We already had UDP, which amongst other reasons was why TCP was defined.

There are well-known protocols without intermediary tolerant delivery characteristics, those still exist and can be used should Das less than the full set be required.

 



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