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


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]