[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] [Fwd: NEW ISSUE: CloseSequenceResponse and TerminateSequenceResponsemessages are inconsistent wrt presence of wsrm:Identifier]
Here is the detailed proposal to resolve the as yet unnumbered issue: All changes are wrt CDII http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/16271/wsrm-1.1-spec-cd-02.pdf 1) After line 398 insert: <wsrm:Identifier ...> xs:anyURI </wsrm:Identifier> 2) After line 404 insert: /wsrm:CloseSequenceResponse/wsrm:Identifier This REQUIRED element MUST contain an absolute URI conformant with RFC3986 that uniquely identifies the Sequence that is closed. /wsrm:CloseSequenceResponse/wsrm:Identifier/@{any} This is an extensibility mechanism to allow additional attributes, based on schemas, to be added to the element. 3) After line 1049 (in schema) insert: <xs:element ref="wsrm:Identifier"/> -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]