[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
I hope that this is scoped to RM and not a general purpose polling mechanism. I assume that is your intent in that you use the wsrm:Identifier and indicate that you see this being part of the core spec. Still it seems like including language that indicates that would be advised, particularly noting that if there were a general purpose polling mechanism that it might be preferred over this one. So following from that why is MessageID in the GetMessage? Isn't the identifier enough? If it isn't wouldn't the addition of wsrm:MessageNumber do the trick? Marc Goodner Technical Diplomat Microsoft Corporation Tel: (425) 703-1903 Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ -----Original Message----- From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:40 PM To: wsrx Subject: [ws-rx] i089 proposal Folks At the F2F I took away an action to come up with a proposal for i089 before the call. I'm sorry its so close to the call. I've attached a proposal for review. This is a work in progress, but I think it helps call out some of the issues involved around i089. I think the most important questions for the TC are: (1) How does a customer/user use WSRM in a two-way scenario if one side is anonymous? (2) Adding a "GetMessage" makes the protocol more symmetric, but also might overlap with a wider non-reliable solution to this problem. Is it in the scope of this TC to add this? (3) In the case we do add it, what criteria do we use to select which message to request. (4) Is this a generic solution (i.e. can the RMD request messages from the RMS in all cases) or special cased to anonURI scenarios? 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]