[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Issue i096
Matt My firm belief is that the state tables should not "make" any decisions that are not justified in the text. So I think for every hole or ambiguity in the tables we need to fix up the text. I think we should clarify the text to state that the sequence is not closed or terminated - i.e. it can still accept undelivered messages. Of course it will not accept new messages. Paul Matthew Lovett wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > That's where these tables get interesting. You could argue that there > are several implementation choices here (keep using the Sequence, > close it, terminate it) and they could all have their advocates. The > tables don't have a notation for "implementation detail". Equally we > could raise the issue you suggest tighten up in the spec to force a > choice onto implementers. > > I'd be happy with you raising the issue, though I'd need to do some > more thinking about the implications of picking a single choice. I'd > also be happy to put a footnote into the table to clarify that cell. > Any suggestions for text? > > Matt > > > > Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com> wrote on 05/04/2006 16:25:57: > > > Matt > > > > Am I right in thinking we need a new issue for the decision you made > > regarding RMD Rollover? I cannot find any words in the spec describing > > what is acceptable after rollover. (I know its not that likely, but its > > twice as likely now as it used to be!). > > > > Paul > > > > Matthew Lovett wrote: > > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > The columns that were removed were on the RMD side. In the old table > > > the author had assumed that if a RMD receives a message with a > message > > > number greater than the limit, that it entered a new 'rollover' > state. > > > I don't believe that state added any value, and don't think that the > > > main spec mentions, implies or defines it. Having reached that > > > conclusion I nuked the entire column ;) The state transition that > now > > > occurs is that a fault is returned to the sender, but that the RMD is > > > still in the 'Connected' state, so the RMS may continue to retransmit > > > earlier messages. > > > > > > The majority of the RMS changes are to ensure that each cell contains > > > both an action and a next state, as the gaps were potentially > misleading. > > > > > > The RMD table changes as mentioned above, and I also clarified the > > > rows corresponding to message arrival (with message number in > range vs > > > message number out of range). > > > I removed the RMD row corresponding to "Unrecoverable error on > > > creation" as I don't think a sequence would be created at all in that > > > case. > > > > > > I removed the RMD retransmitted message row as the RMD won't always > > > know if a message is retransmitted (the first transmission might have > > > been completely lost). The main message received row should be robust > > > enough to deal with this, and further detail sails close to RMD/AD > > > communication issues that are out of scope. > > > > > > I removed the RMD "message rollover fault" row, as an RMS is never > > > going to send that fault to an RMD. > > > > > > I removed the RMD "terminate sequence" row as it was a duplicate (see > > > 3 rows above). > > > > > > > > > I hope that helps! Thanks for asking - I'm sure that you were not the > > > only person who wanted a guide to the changes. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *"Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>* > > > > > > 05/04/2006 14:55 > > > > > > > > > To > > > Matthew Lovett/UK/IBM@IBMGB, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > cc > > > > > > Subject > > > RE: [ws-rx] Issue i096 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you give us some explanation of the changes? In particular why > > > are you proposing to remove two complete columns? > > > > > > > > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > > > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > > > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329_ > > > __mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com_ > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *From:* Matthew Lovett [mailto:MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com] * > > > Sent:* April 5, 2006 9:32 AM* > > > To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org* > > > Subject:* [ws-rx] Issue i096 > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Here's an updated PDF for the state tables. There are quite a few > > > updates, all highlited in blue. If this proposal is accepted by the > > > TC, I think this leaves the tables in a reasonable state (no pun > > > intended), so if anyone has any further ideas for changes they are > > > probably best handled under new, specific issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > I also have the openoffice doc that produced the PDF - it may be > > > useful for the editors if the TC accepts the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > -- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]