I’m certainly against
banning anon. Why is it the mandate of RM to “get the anon/sync world to look
as much like the async world as possible”? Your proposal makes it clear that is
what your goal is, but that is also foremost in my mind why it has nothing to
do with RM. That statement clearly scopes the problem you are trying to solve
as a foundational architectural concern below the level of RM.
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:28
AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
I think this scenario is required for RM. At the
last f2f we talked about how an RMS may need to create new sequences for a
variety of reasons - one of which was because people wanted to be able to
create a new sequence based on the soap version, but there are lots of other
reasons people may need to create 'em. IMO, the use of the anon EPR
should not impact these types of decisions - remember we're trying to get the
anon/sync world to look as much like the async world as possible. If we
allowed anon EPRs to impact our RM processing/decision-making model then we
would need to explore banning the use of anon, which I believe is something
your against.
-Doug
"Marc Goodner"
<mgoodner@microsoft.com>
04/28/2006 04:14 AM
|
To
|
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
|
|
Doug, is that scenario required for RM
or polling in general? As soon as you start talking about a server side RMS
establishing a sequence to an un-addressable client I think you are beyond RM.
You can’t establish inbound communications from a server to an un-addressable
client without RM so why is this an RM problem?
If we are looking to add a tightly scoped
polling mechanism to RM for specific scenarios this one would not be high on my
list.
Marc Goodner
Technical Diplomat
Microsoft Corporation
Tel: (425) 703-1903
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:05 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
I do believe that the scenario you're talking about is a required one but
I would phrase it
a bit differently. An RMS (whether its the client-side RMS or the
server-side RMS) needs
to be able to follow the same RM processing model. And part of the
processing model
is the ability to decide "if", "when" and "how"
to use RM. As we talk about in the
Q&A
section of our proposal, an RMS having the option of choosing to decide which
RM sequence
to use, when to create new ones, or even when to use RM at all are all part of
the RM
processing model and those aspects need to be maintained even in these anon
cases.
In your proposal you put the burden on the RMD to make a lot decisions on
behalf of
the RMS, that's quite a change to the RM processing model and I have no idea
how the
RMD could ever know all it would need to know to make those decisions. For
example, how
would it know when a new sequence is needed by the RMS? That is why I
believe our
proposal is a better fit for RM - it allows the RMS to retain all of the same
logic and choices
that it has in the async world. Our proposal simply re-establishes the
backchannel that
the RMS (on the server side) is looking for - nothing more. Once that is
there, it is then
back to "standard operating procedures" - the RMS can do whatever it
would normally
do.
thanks,
-Doug
Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>
04/27/2006
05:51 PM
|
To
|
Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
|
cc
|
wsrx <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
|
Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
|
|
If the TC isn't attached to this scenario then this section can be
deleted. The scenario is simply when you want to send unreliably but
receive reliable responses. I've heard this stated as a requirement in
some scenarios, but WSO2 doesn't have any pressing scenarios of this ilk
so we would be happy either way.
Paul
Marc Goodner wrote:
> So is an RMS engaged at the client side or not? This is weird, why would
> the infrastructure on the client side decide to do this?
>
> 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 27, 2006 12:57 PM
> To: Marc Goodner
> Cc: wsrx
> 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