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] i119 - discussion of ballot



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]