[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Clarification proposal for i090
Anish, The original reason for raising issue i090 was that in what I would consider to be a typical use-case, an Application Source wants to send a message to a target URI and in-order to do this, the RMS will associate the target URI with a sequence, so that it knows the correct sequence to use. If the RMS did not have a sequence associated with the target URI, it would create a new one. Forgetting offer a second, this same process would take place in both directions for a request-response exchange. Now when a sequence is offered, the responding RMS is given the offered sequence but it has no target URI to associate it with, unless an assumption is made such as associating the sequence with one of the EPRs from the CreateSequence message, or assuming that the offered sequence should be used for all replies to messages on the inbound sequence. My concern is that unless offer is removed, or this relationship is defined, different implementations will make different assumptions causing interop problems. Can you see a way in which offer can remain a general optimization, but also be defined clearly enough to avoid interoperability problems? Thanks, Dan WS-Reliable Messaging Architecture/Development IBM WebSphere Messaging Design and Development MP 211 Hursley Tel. Internal 248617 Tel. External +44 1962 818617 Email. millwood@uk.ibm.com Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@ oracle.com> To Marc Goodner 23/02/2006 19:49 <mgoodner@microsoft.com> cc ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject Re: [ws-rx] Clarification proposal for i090 Marc, I've not followed the full discussion on this issue, but was curious as to why is RMS/RMD restricted to a single EPR (replyTo). We have already said that RMS/RMD can span multiple WSDL endpoints, EPRs. This changes does not make it just an optimization anymore. -Anish -- Marc Goodner wrote: > I believe that Offer provides important functionality and should not be > cut to remove ambiguity with its usage. I would prefer to remove that > ambiguity through clarifications to the spec rather than cut the > feature. Below is my proposal for how to do so based on WD10. > > > > Clarification proposal for i090 > > > > Section 2.1 > > Line 240 after last sentence add, “When an offer is accepted all > messages for the accepted sequence MUST be sent to the <wsa:ReplyTo> of > the <wsrm:CreateSequence> message.” > > > > Line 274 change “to RM Source.” to “to the RM Source at the address > specified by the <wsa:ReplyTo> of this message.” > > > > Line 343 change “to RM Source.” to “to the RM Source at the address > specified by the <wsa:ReplyTo> of the <wsrm:CreateSequence> message.” > > > > > > Marc Goodner > > Technical Diplomat > > Microsoft Corporation > > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]