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 14:46:51 -0500
oops, my bad... that's what I meant
The one that adds the Identifier element.
My lexidysia has struck again.
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 02:27:16 PM:
> Chris,
>
> As I said in my email, I have a slight preference for option 1. I'll
> send out and email with precise changes for that.
>
> -Anish
> --
>
> Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> >
> > 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]