OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal


I use the words "Offered Sequence" informatively and non-normatively. 
This is most likely to be used with an offered sequence, but isn't tied 
to that.

As regards 4.2, this is there to satisfy the scenario where you only 
want reliable responses. I added this in for discussion because I know 
that some members find this an important scenario. In that case you need 
to be able to Offer a sequence without the overhead of requesting one. 
It is related to the anonymous client because without a real endpoint 
the server cannot send a CS to the client so it relies on an offer.


Marc Goodner wrote:
> Given 1 and 2, yes some text that clarified that not only is this
> specific to RM but that a general solution would be preferable would be
> best.
> On 3 I suppose, I don't like seeing WS-A headers in the body of a
> message though. Do you really even need the response for a specific
> message? Why not return any responses or messages for that sequence that
> have not been acknowledged? And what are you talking about when you say
> this is tied to the offered sequence? What offered sequence? I don't see
> anything here that ties the use of your GetMessage proposal to an
> offered sequence.
> I don't understand section 4.2 in your proposal at all. What does this
> have to do with the rest of this proposal?
> 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 20, 2006 1:57 AM
> To: Marc Goodner
> Cc: wsrx
> 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


"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]