RE: [ws-rx] issue 84 proposal for rms colums e-h

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

But your proposal doesn't say what the
RMS should do with it - it just repeats what was said
before - that the sequence is closed.
 :-)
-Doug


"Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
wrote on 01/19/2006 05:01:27 PM:

> No, but the spec should say what an RMS to do if the fault is 
> received at any time.
> We could say
> ignore it,
> Lock up,
> Close the sequence
> Right now, it is left to the imagination
>  
> 
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:49 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] issue 84 proposal for rms colums e-h
>  
> 
> hmmm, does the spec say that the fault can be sent w/o some RMS 
> initiated action? 
> -Doug 
> 
> 
> "Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
wrote on 
> 01/19/2006 04:10:04 PM:
> 
> > One reason is that it is written that the fault is in response
to 
> > the receipt of a message.  If the fault is NOT as a response
to an 
> > RMS initiated message and it is simply received by the RMS, what
> is it to do? 
> > Our readers would prefer that an explicit action (rather than
an 
> > implicit understanding) would clarify the situation. 
> > -bob 
> >   
> > 
> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:56 PM
> > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] issue 84 proposal for rms colums e-h 
> >   
> > 
> > Bob, 
> >   the fault says: 
> > This fault is sent by an RM Destination to indicate that the
> > specified sequence has been closed. This fault 
> > MUST be generated when an RM Destination is asked to receive
a 
> > message for a sequence that is 
> > closed. 
> > 
> > repeating... "to indicate that the specified sequence has
been 
> > closed".  Why would 
> > adding "This fault when received by the RMS indicates that
the 
> > sequence has been closed by the RMD" 
> > make this more clear?  What assumption could the RMS make
aside from
> > "the sequence has been closed"? 
> > I'm not necessarily against adding your text I just don't see
how it
> > helps to basically 
> > repeat the same thing twice. 
> > -Doug 
> > 
> > 
> > "Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
wrote on 
> > 01/19/2006 03:41:01 PM:
> > 
> > > I feel that WD07 lines 759-761 describes under what conditions
> > > Sequence Closed is sent by the RMD, not what actions must
be taken 
> > > by RMS if it is received when RMS believes that the sequence
may 
> > notbe closed. 
> > > Proposal: 
> > > Add following text after line 761: (ref WD07) 
> > > This fault when received by the RMS indicates that the sequence
has 
> > > been closed by the RMD.