RE: [ws-rx] issue i021 requirements

["Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>]

I think all of these requirements are reasonable, but I have a comment
about this last sentence:

"The capabilities provided in (1) - (4) above should not force the port
to support reliability for the getStatus operation."

If I understand Chris' position no one is forcing RM semantics on the
getStatus operation, it's just that there may be implementations of the
RMS that are not capable of supporting message-level granularity. If the
overhead of using RM for getStatus is completely unacceptable to you,
then you would be well advised to use an implementation of RMS that
*does* support message-level granularity. The point is that the RMD
should be flexible enough to support RMS implementations that both do
and do not support message-level granularity.

- gp
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 5:01 AM
> To: wsrx
> Subject: [ws-rx] issue i021 requirements
> 
> I took an action during last week's concall to send 
> requirements for what I see as the desired semantics for 
> issue i021. Sorry for being late but I'm on vacation till 
> 17th march (my regrets for the next 2 concalls).
> 
> Requirements:
> 
> 1) Provide the capability to specify in WSDL that a 
> particular message (input, output, or fault) MUST be sent 
> reliably within a WSRM Sequence.
> 
> 2) Provide the capability to specify in WSDL that a 
> particular message (input, output, or fault) MAY be sent 
> using WSRM. The means that it is the sender's choice (and not 
> the receiver's) whether the message is sent reliably or not.
> 
> 3) Provide the capability to specify in a WSDL binding/port 
> that all messages  sent using that binding/port MUST be sent 
> reliably within a WSRM Sequence (but not in the same 
> Sequence). This potentially could be syntactic sugar based on 
> how the capability in (1) is provided.
> 
> 4) Provide the capability to specify in a WSDL binding/port 
> that all messages  sent using that binding/port MAY be sent 
> reliably within a WSRM Sequence (but not in the same 
> Sequence). The means that it is the sender's choice (and not 
> the receiver's) whether the message is sent reliably or not. 
> This potentially could be syntactic sugar based on how the 
> capability in (2) is provided.
> 
> 5) The capability in (1) and (2) should not impose onerous 
> constrains on other messages within the same 
> portType/Binding/Port wrt reliability. 
> For example, one should have the ability to specify that a 
> particular in-message MUST be sent reliably without requiring 
> any reliability constrains on the out-message (supported or required).
> 
> Consider a port which is a purchase order service providing 
> 'submitPO' 
> and 'getStatus' operations. The submitPO operation is 
> reliable, secure and transacted operation which returns a PO 
> number. Both the in and out messages for submitPO are sent 
> reliably. The getStatus operations requires the PO number and 
> returns a status (pending, approved) -- this is not a secure, 
> reliable or a transacted operation. The capabilities provided 
> in (1) - (4) above should not force the port to support 
> reliability for the getStatus operation.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.