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] Minimalist GetMessage proposal



We've been over this many times. Any RMS should be free to make its own determination as to when
IT requests creation of a Sequence. The RMS at the server side of an RMD that can only be accessed via
the anonymous endpoint is/should be no exception. Further, your CS/Offer doesn't work for use cases
where reliability is only in the server->client direction because there would not be a Sequence for the
client->server direction.

I am curious though as to why you seem to have no problems with discussing the technical merits
of this proposal, when with Doug's, you are simply asserting that the discussion is out of scope.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295


"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com> wrote on 05/03/2006 11:51:51 PM:

> I agree this proposal is a lot tighter in scope.
>
> I'm not to convinced of the need to poll for a CS so that doesn't
> trouble me very much. Your suggestion for the addition of Offer is an
> interesting idea. I'm not sure how much it really optimizes things when
> the client instead of polling for an inbound CS could simply start with
> an outbound CS with an Offer for an inbound sequence. The outbound
> sequence would be independent of the inbound one so it could be
> terminated before the inbound one if it was not needed.
>
> Marc Goodner
> Technical Diplomat
> Microsoft Corporation
> Tel: (425) 703-1903
> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Durand, Jacques R. [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 7:24 PM
> To: Paul Fremantle; wsrx
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Minimalist GetMessage proposal
>
> I must say the proposal is much improved and scoped.
> It of course works only with offered sequences - I am still trying to
> convince myself that not being able to poll for CS is not a (serious)
> issue.
> A wild idea: the unreliable-in/reliable-out case could be handled better
> by allowing an wsrm:Offer on the GetMessage...
>
> Jacques
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 12:05 PM
> To: wsrx
> Subject: [ws-rx] Minimalist GetMessage proposal
>
> Based on some of the discussions it seemed to me that it could be
> valuable to produce a completely "minimalist" GetMessage proposal.
>
> This is a new proposal that is based on the previous WSO2 proposal.
>
> The proposal removes the MessageID selector in the GetMessage - relying
> on simply getting whatever message the server sends back next.
>
> Also it removes the section 4.2. Effectively section 4.2 is an
> optimisation: for example to support unreliable-in/reliable-out a client
>
> could do a createsequence+offer and never use the outgoing sequence. In
> this case there is an overhead, which 4.2 aimed to remove, but this
> simplifies the proposal by focussing on the bare minimum required to
> support the most common use cases, but still allowing the other use case
>
> with a slight overhead.
>
> I've also included a sample message flow which I hope helps understand
> the proposal and show the general usage.
>
> 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]