Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Groups - Application Notes for WSRM (AppNotes-061-WSRM.doc) uploaded
Statement should have been removed - was from a previous version...
No linkage is attempted between bindings of these two patterns in the latest app notes draft as you can see.
It was referring to the fact that in some cases - expected to be not so uncommon -, the need to restrict the binding option(s) being used is due to constraints that apply to all patterns. E.g. a client that cannot receive incoming requests.
It remains that we need to take a position on where to provide guidance about the use of 3rd party specifications that contribute to the deployment and use of WS-ReliableMessaging, such as need to secure sequences, use of wsa for controlling the response messages (e.g. CSR), etc. (The latter has actually been illustrated in the interop tests so I think it will appear in whatever form of report comes out of it.)
Might be useful to agree on some criteria for deciding whether such material:
- is core spec material
- is app notes / impl guidelines material
- is profile material
Everyone seems to have his/her own opinion on this...
Cheering back ;-)
From: Christopher B
"It is often necessary that the same binding option(s) be used between an RMS and an RMD, for all patterns. In particular, in case the synchronous sequence management binding is used exclusively due to restrictions previously mentioned, then it is likely that the same restrictions apply to the acknowledgement pattern as well
The binding option for this pattern are indicated using the AcksTo element of CreateSequence message with value: <wsa:Address>http://www.w3c.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous</wsa:Address>
If the wsa:ReplyTo element is used on the requested version of the acknowledgement pattern, then it should not have a value that conflicts with the binding option (i.e. should have value "anonymous")."
What makes you think that "it is often necessary"? As I said in my previous note on the subject, there should be NO constraint that the exchange pattern/binding used for the CreateSequence (and other lifecycle operations) to share the same pattern/binding as the messages within a Sequence. None.
I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish here, but frankly am a little concerned with the direction this is taking.