[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
Marc This is the case where the client is making an offer but not creating an outbound sequence - thats all. A client offers a sequence, and then reliably gets messages from the server that are buffered under that sequenceID. Paul Marc Goodner wrote: > I still don't understand why offered sequence is being used in the > explanation. If this is going to usually be used with an offered > sequence I'd like to understand how, that isn't explained in my mind. If > it is applicable for any sequence, offered or not, I'd like to > understand that as well. The current text only confuses me in its use of > the term and I'm afraid your explanation below isn't helping me get past > it. Perhaps comparing the two modes would be a better approach. > > On 4.2, "Offer a sequence without the overhead of requesting one"? I > don't understand. The text refers to the RMD requesting a sequence from > the RMS, but it sounds like this is an unreliable request so doesn't > that mean there is no RMS at the client? Isn't this about the service > acting as an RMS and the client acting as an RMD? So the pattern would > be client sends one way message to service (GetMessage?), response is > Offer, then client sends a response to the response of Accept? What does > the service return to that? Why wouldn't the service send a CS in the > body of the GetMessage response to the client? > > 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: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:11 AM > To: Marc Goodner > Cc: wsrx > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal > > Marc > > 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. > > Paul > > 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 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]