Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Inefficient close/terminate of offered sequences

[Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>]

I don't agree with Chris's comments. I have heard a number of people 
complain in person and on mailing lists about the "overhead" of WSRM, in 
particular overhead of the extra calls. 
I still regret that the TC never took on board Chris's suggestion to 
optimise the XML used in the protocol and therefore reduce the size of 
our headers and messages.

Your suggestion to use a Final SequenceAcknowledgement header as an 
alternative is actually a pretty good alternative proposal for this 
issue, as long as we make sure it's interoperable, and can deal with 
both close and terminate.

Finally, Your statement that the originator should not be able to 
terminate contradicts the spec. Either side can terminate the spec at 
any time.

Paul

As rea

Doug Bunting wrote:
> In addition to +1 on Chris' recent comment:
>
> For "reverse" Close, use a sequence acknowledgement with Final.  No 
> limit on them either.
>
> For "reverse" Terminate, that's up to the "other" RMS -- the 
> responding system in the TSR w/ Offer proposed exchange.  The 
> originator (RMD for the proposed offer-to-terminate sequence) should 
> not be able to terminate.
>
> thanx,
>    doug
>
> On 17/05/06 02:56, paul@wso2.com wrote:
>> Doug
>>
>> In this case we are sending a terminate in the opposite direction to
>> usual. The standard TerminateSequence flows from an RMS to an RMD. The
>> TerminateSequence/Offer is logically flowing from the clients RMD to the
>> RMS. There is no way to do this using the current spec.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>  
>>> I wasn't clear earlier and I'm likely not clear now but sending 
>>> anyhow...
>>>
>>> On 16/05/06 23:06, paul@wso2.com wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Doug
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the review. Comments below.
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> A few questions...
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>      
>>>>> What prevents an RMS or RMD putting 2 close or terminate sequence
>>>>> requests in the same message?  Each exchange is carefully identified
>>>>> and
>>>>> may be handled separately without conflict.
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>> I guess it would be just the same as the original Offer - just an 
>>>> aspect
>>>> of the schema and the definition. It seems simplest to me to restrict
>>>> this
>>>> to closing a single Offered sequence.
>>>>       
>>> My intended point was this proposal may not be necessary.  In lieu of
>>> restrictions on sending multiple close or terminate sequence requests
>>> together, what problem need we address?
>>>
>>> thanx,
>>>     doug
>>>
>>>     
>>
>>   

-- 

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