[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
Marc 1) Yes - I completely aimed this to be a specific model for RM. I would be happy to include language that indicates that if a more general purpose firewall crossing mechanism was in place this should not be used. 2) The wsrm:Identifier is a required part of my proposal, and therefore this proposal is completely tied to the use of RM. 3) The suggestion of using messageNumber is interesting. The motivation for using a message ID was that there may be situations where I really want the response to a given message. We do not - so far - have any concept of a response to a given RM messageID, so that seemed like a new concept to me, whereas WS-A systems do keep track of responses to given messageIDs. But I'm not averse to your suggestion. However I wish to make clear that in my proposal you MUST have both the Identifier and the messageID - so it is still very closely tied to the offered sequence. Paul Marc Goodner wrote: > 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]