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: NEW ISSUE: CloseSequenceResponse and TerminateSequenceResponse messagesare inconsistent wrt presence of wsrm:Identifier


Ok, thanks for the response.

I would like to open a new issue (changed the subject line accordingly).
(details of the issue below).

I could live with either removing the wsrm:Identifier in TSR message or 
adding the wsrm:Identifier in the CSR message. I have a slight 
preference for the latter. The reason for this is that, even though in 
either case, wsa:RelatesTo allows you to correlate the message with the 
request, it is possible that the RMS engine processes messages based on 
the wsrm:Identifier (as that uniquely identifies the Sequence and can be 
used for resource garbage collection, routing of messages, maintenance 
of the Sequence et). It also makes things cleaner by having the 
identifier in every message in the Sequence (except the CreateSequence 
message). Additionally, if the messages are logged, having the 
identifier in every message quickly allows one to identify all the 
messages in the Sequence (say for debugging purposes). But, as I said 
above I could live with either.


Title: CloseSequenceResponse and TerminateSequenceResponse messages are 
inconsistent wrt presence of wsrm:Identifier

Description/Justification: Both the CloseSequenceResponse and 
TerminateSequenceResponse follow a similar pattern, but the CSR message 
does not contain the wsrm:Identifier whereas the TSR does.

Target: wsrm spec

Type: design

Proposal: Either (1) add the wsrm:Identifier element to the 
CloseSequenceResponse message OR (2) remove the wsrm:Identifier element 
in the TerminateSequenceResponse message.


-Anish
--

Doug Davis wrote:
> 
> I think the only reason I didn't include an ID in the CloseResponse was 
> because I assumed the wsa:relatesTo would take care of it and it seemed 
> like redundant information.  I agree we should be consistent and I don't 
> have a huge preference either way.
> -Doug
> 
> 
> 
> *Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>*
> 
> 02/02/2006 07:16 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	wsrx <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	[ws-rx] Possible new issue: identifier in CloseSequenceResponse message
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While creating the proposal for TerminateSequenceResponse message, I
> noticed that the CloseSequenceResponse message does not have the
> Sequence Identifier in the message. Is this an an oversight and that the
> identifier does indeed need to be included in the message OR is the
> intention to rely on wsa:RelatesTo? I think having the identifier in the
> message just makes it much cleaner/simpler/consistent. But regardless, I
> included the identifier in the TSR message (assuming that it was an
> error not to include it in the CloseSequenceReponse message -- possibly
> an incorrect assumption) and we need to be consistent: either have the
> Identifier in the CloseSequenceResponse message or remove the Identifier
> in the TerminateSequenceResponse message.
> 
> I should have highlighted this in my proposal for the TSR message. I
> intended to, but somehow missed it. Apologies.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 


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