Doug,
To me this line seems
to be a lot more relevant than the ones you quoted:
If some function, mechanism or feature is not mentioned here, and it is
not mentioned in the Scope of Work section either, then it will be deemed to be
out of scope.
As polling is a well
understood concept that can easily be interpreted as a feature or mechanism why
was it not explicitly called out in the charter?
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 6:32 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
DougB,
I'm not promoting a general solution - not exactly :-). What I'm
promoting is a solution that
solves
all of the various use-cases that I believe the RM spec should address.
In developing
the
solution however, many people have noticed that it can work even when RM (the
resend
until
acked part of RM) is not turned on - and that is true but nothing was added to
the solution to
make
that happen. In fact, it would take a lot of effort (and IMO hurt the
proposal) if it was modified
to
only work like Paul's proposal - he tried very hard to tie his proposal to RM
sequences, and
as a
result he limited the RM scenarios he can support - and he will end up changing
the
core
RM processing model too. We purposely tried to avoid limiting the use of
RM and tried
to
ensure that an RMS could always have the same processing model regardless of
whether
anon
EPR are used.
If there's part of our proposal that isn't needed for the RM use cases (and
people can show that it
was
added just for the general solution) then please point it out and we'll look at
removing it but
I
honestly don't think there are any. Please see the Q&A section of
our proposal - it talks about
some
of the use cases that helped form the proposal.
As for the charter, it says:
-
Reliable establishment and teardown of one or more independent shared contexts
between
two parties within which reliability assurances apply to one-way or two-way
messaging.
- A
mechanism which two parties can use to perform one-way or two-way reliable
messaging
within a reliable context.
Clearly
anon EPRs are a very important part of our customer's environments -
establishing
RM
sequences in those cases is therefore something we can (and should) address.
Simply
because
the solution just happens to be so cool :-) that it can be used in other
situations doesn't
mean
it should be discounted or rejected. In a normal (non-political) world,
most people would
think
that would be a good thing.
thanks
-Doug
Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
Sent
by: Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM
05/01/2006
03:00 PM
|
To
|
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
|
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
|
Subject
|
Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
|
|
Doug,
I may be struggling with a similar issue to Marc
though I would phrase
it differently: Could you please describe how your
"general" solution
fits into the Charter[1] under which our group was
formed?
thanx,
doug
[1]
<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ws-rx/charter.php>
On 30/04/06 17:57, Doug Davis wrote:
>
> Marc,
> First, I'm glad that I think we're all
in agreement that a polling
> solution is the right solution for these
issues - I think that alone
> is progress. So, as you say, the
question then becomes a matter of
> placement of function. Up to now I
think most people have chosen to
> ignore this issue. Yes some groups
(like WS-BaseNotification or
> WS-Management) saw the issue and defined
their own domain specific
> solutions, but they are just that - domain
specific. As you say in
> your note, a more foundational architectural
solution is a better
> approach. So, is RM one of those specs?
RM clearly isn't domain
> specific and it deals with transfer of
messages between endpoint - so
> far so good. As I've said several
times, I don't think its a stretch
> to think of reliability as more than just
resend until acked. Right
> now RM already deals with reaching
unreachable endpoints - but we've
> been thinking of it limiting itself to
'unreachable' meaning
> temporarily down - or poor networks
connections. I really don't think
> its hard to see anon endpoints as being part
of that grouping - there
> really isn't much of a difference. In
all cases the other side isn't
> guaranteed to be there - the only thing
that's special about this case
> is how the connection between the two endpoints
is established -
> beyond that everything else is the same (at
least for our proposal -
> Paul's doesn't keep everything else the same
but that's a different
> note :-).
> Perhaps I didn't say it correctly, but
its not that I think its RM's
> job to get the anon/sync world to look as
much like the async world -
> what I meant to say is that we wanted our
polling solution to allow
> them to look the same to the code that makes
use of it.
> thanks,
> -Doug
>
>
>
> *"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>*
>
> 04/28/2006 04:32 AM
>
>
> To
>
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>
> Subject
>
RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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 1:28 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
> >>> As a much lower
technical detail, I do not believe your
> proposal addresses one of the major issues
> >>>
> >> 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
> >> As a much lower technical
detail, I do not believe your proposal
> addresses one of the major issues
> >>
> >>> 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:
> >>>
> >>> As a much lower
technical detail, I do not believe your
> proposal addresses one of the major issues
> >>>
> >>>> 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
>