[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Groups - Application Notes for WSRM (AppNotes-061-WSRM.doc) uploaded
Chris: 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 ;-) Jacques From: Christopher B
Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
"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. Cheers,
Christopher
Ferris
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]