ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] [Fwd: NEW ISSUE: CloseSequenceResponse andTerminateSequenceResponse messages are inconsistent wrt presence of wsrm:Identifier]
- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 07:55:37 -0500
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
> > --
> >
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]