Re: [ws-rx] [Fwd: NEW ISSUE: CloseSequenceResponse andTerminateSequenceResponse messages are inconsistent wrt presence of wsrm:Identifier]

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

Anish,

I would have no problem either way,
either. Why don't we go with option 2.
Can you pull together the precise changes/line
numbers necessary to have a 
fully fleshed out proposal that we can
vote on?

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
wrote on 02/09/2006 01:21:54 AM:

> Since the email hasn't shown up in the archive after almost 8 hours.
> Resending. Apologies if you get this twice.
> 
> -Anish
> --

> 
> ----- Message from Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
on 
> Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:37:42 -0800 -----
> 
> To:
> 
> Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
> 
> cc:
> 
> ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> Subject:
> 
> NEW ISSUE: CloseSequenceResponse and TerminateSequenceResponse 
> messages are 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
> > --
> > 
>