From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 1:36
AM
To: Paul Fremantle
Cc: wsrx
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] An
alternative approach to make anon reply-to and sync rm work
Paul,
I
think there are some problems with this - I still think this violates WSA. There's
a reason anon replyTo means, in essence, the http response flow of the request
message. The connection becomes the correlator between the request and
the response - meaning if several anon requests come in the only way the server
knows which client gets which response is thru the http connection. In
your scenario if there are two anon requests sent to the server using the same
sequence and no responses sent, when the third connection is made (to carry the
ackReq) how does the server know which client is initiating the request. It
can not simply assume that just because they shared the same sequence that they
also share WSA state and that any response can be sent to any client. The
correlation is now lost.
thanks,
-Doug
|
Paul Fremantle
<paul@wso2.com>
03/09/2006 06:53 PM
|
|
To
|
wsrx <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
[ws-rx] An alternative approach to make anon
reply-to and sync rm work
|
|
The
biggest issue with the two way reliable HTTP + anonURI case is the
requirement to replay request messages to get
responses.
Why is this a problem? Because it means that the
client has to store
requests (if and only if the interaction is
two-way) beyond getting an ack
for that request.
This means that the RMS has to "know" if
this particular message
interaction is one-way or two way. This means that
for example, a dumb
gateway can't do it without looking at WSDLs etc.
Why do we need to do this: because WSA states:
"For instance, the SOAP 1.2
HTTP binding puts the reply message in the HTTP
response."
So I agree we should not put an application reply
to message A in an
HTTP response to application message B.
However, if we added the following text to our
spec:
"In the case where an offered sequence is
used, the RMS may send an
<wsrm:AckRequested> header together with an
empty SOAP body. A valid
response to this message MAY either contain an
empty SOAP body, or MAY
contain a message for the *offered*
sequence".
The result of this would be that the response
message on the HTTP reply
would be a valid reply to the request message and
therefore would not break the
WS-Addressing text above. Effectively WSRM would
be defining what
the SOAP request/reply would be, and therefore
"making it right"
with respect to the HTTP binding.
So, when things are going well the HTTP reply to
any given request message would be the
correct response message. But in the case that
this message got lost or
delayed, the RMS would have a choice. If it still
had the message, and it
"knew" that the MEP was two-way, it
could choose to resend the
original request OR it could send an empty body
with an ackRequested
header.
This also gives the offered sequence a message
onto which to
piggyback Close and TerminateSequence requests,
solving another problem.
More importantly it removes the need for
the RMS to "know" the MEP, because by
the repeated application of empty-body ackRequests,
the RMS can get the offered sequence into a decent
state.
The only compulsory implementation change I see is
that the RMD would
have to be coded to know what this empty body +
ackrequest means.
From the RMS I see this as optional. It is
completely up to the RMS
whether it initiates a CS with Offer+AnonURI. So
if an implementation doesn't support this,
it will never initiate such a channel. And if the
RMS does initiate such
a channel, it will "know" it is in this
mode, that it needs to send
occasional empty ackrequests until it can close
down the offered sequence.
In addition we would have to remove the words that
say Offer is simply an optimization,
because this usage makes a specific correlation
between a sequence and offered sequence.
Paul
--
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf
paul@wso2.com
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform",
www.wso2.com