ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i119 - discussion of ballot
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:42:39 -0400
If the RM state is local (e.g. an in-memory
persistence) then I'm not sure that's
a safe assumption - hence the potential
interop issue :-)
-Doug
Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
Sent by: Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM
05/22/2006 01:37 PM
|
To
| Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
| ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
|
Subject
| Re: [ws-rx] i119 - discussion of ballot |
|
Doug,
I'm assuming the sequence state should be available to all ultimate
recipients within the RMS cluster. This is very different from
requiring all to be able to pass messages to all AS.
On 22/05/06 09:50, Doug Davis wrote:
> If I understand your 'uncoordinated' comment correctly, you're saying
> that a
> gateway should know how to route the message, right? But if
the Body is
kind of
> intended for backend#1 and the Ack is intended for backend#2 how would
> that work? Or are you suggesting that the gateway should split the
msg
> into
either backend should be able to update the shared state
> pieces and send each part to the correct backend machine? Or are you
that's another, more complex way to do it; prevents load-balancing of
acknowledgement processing however
> requiring that the gateway machine understand all possible RM states
> for all backend machines?
I hope not
thanx,
doug
> thanks,
> -Doug
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]