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'll have to think about the filter, it wasn't clear to me that it was
an optional part of the GetMessage request. I'm still not clear on why
you think the concept of a response to a sequence identifier/message
number is more difficult than sequence identifier / wsa:messagenumber.
To me the former seems more intuitive as a filter for a specific
response on an RM sequence.

I agree there isn't any reason to limit it to offered sequences. I
maintain that if the use is different when offer is in play than when it
isn't it should be explained. To me the RMS at the client would be using
this to get a response to a message sent on the sequence the RMD
assigned an identifier to so Offer doesn't figure in. The response to
the get message would be the lost response message that may be reliable
itself and part of a sequence that was originally established via an
offer. That doesn't really impact anything as near as I can tell.

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: Friday, April 28, 2006 2:21 AM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: wsrx
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal

Marc

I'll try and answer your questions about 3 below.

The GetMessage is requesting messages that are waiting to be transmitted

for a given sequence. The GetMessage in my proposal always has a 
sequence identifier in it. The messageID was a further filter allowing 
the client to specifically request messages relating to a given message.

The motivation behind this was the scenario where a response to a 
particular message is being waited for. However, the model still works 
without this optimisation. If the TC was looking for the minimal 
solution to allow the simple scenarios we have, then this aspect could 
be removed from the proposal.

I agree the proposal is not tied to Offered sequences. I was using that 
as an example, because the most likely scenario is that this will be 
used with offered sequences. However, I don't see any reason to restrict

this to offered sequences.

Paul



Marc Goodner wrote:
> You never answered my questions related to WSA in 3 below. I'd really
> like to understand your use of messageId here to get a specific
response
> message particularly after today's call. On that call you and Chris
both
> indicated you thought that a RMD not only had the right to not return
a
> response for a previously acked request, but that it might for some
> reason have substantial difficulty doing so. Why if you don't perceive
> this as a problem in a WSA based system do you view it as so
problematic
> in a RM based system? Particularly when the response for the acked
> request is also reliable and has not been acked itself, obviously the
> RMD has to be holding that response. What in a WSA based system says
the
> response has to be held anywhere for retransmission?
>
> Marc Goodner
> Technical Diplomat
> Microsoft Corporation
> Tel: (425) 703-1903
> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ 
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:23 AM
> To: Paul Fremantle
> Cc: wsrx
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
>
> 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]