ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 joint proposal
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 11:43:54 -0400
Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM wrote on 06/01/2006 12:39:57
AM:
> Doug,
>
> A joint proposal from whom? Which options are now off the table
from
> the submitting group's perspective?
Sorry about that - it was late and I was tired :-)
This joint proposal
replaces all previous proposals put forward by BEA,
IBM and/or WSO2.
> Apart from a number of typographic and grammatic errors I'll leave
to
> out esteemed monkeys and / or editors (assuming for a millisecond
this
> gets accepted), a few questions:
The monkeys thank you for your support
> * Could you please explain (I know, one more time) how
you see this
> alternative SOAP binding to be in scope for the
WS-RX TC? I am
> most concerned about the
>
> [ <wsrm:Address> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Address>
] ?
>
> portion and its implications. I am having trouble
seeing this
> aspect from your perspective. Why is it our responsibility
to solve
> the one-direction-works-better transfer protocol issue
for every
> WS-RM exchange, let alone everyone?
I don't understand what you mean by "one-direction-works-better
transfer
protocol issue". If you mean anon/unreachable
endpoints then I suspect
I couldn't say anything to convince you that its is
a valid thing for
us to look at (aside from what has already been stated
over and over)
but the TC has voted several times to head down this
path.
Since you pulled out the getByAddress variant and
not the getBySeqID
one let me state, yet again, why this is needed -
without this form
new protocol messages (like CreateSeq) would not be
able to flow.
> * The text remains unclear about piggy-backing response
messages on
> the underlying protocol back channel. If
you and I are using HTTP
> to communicate, may I place response messages
in the HTTP response
> to messages from the same sequence? Can
you switch to (and from)
> using MakeConnection at any point, say when you
haven't sent an
> outbound message in the sequence for some interval?
As long as you (the server) have the proper correlation
info to determine
that the backchannel is the 'right' backchannel then
yes. Normally this
would mean just the same connection that carried the
request message
and the connection with the appropriate MakeConnection
message.
> * "this URI is semantically equivalent to the WS-Addressing
> anonymous URI if a protocol-specific back-channel
is available"
> seem to answer some of the above bullet in the
negative,
> disallowing one of the more interesting use cases.
That is, (as a
> corner case perhaps worth solving in this TC),
I am interested in
> getting additional information back to you after
you are done
> sending me messages. I don't however know
in advance when you'll
> be done. I'd certainly rather we didn't
have to waste time with
> extra MakeConnection round trips while you are
still sending me
> regular messages in the sequence (over HTTP).
It seems if a back
> channel is available we must always use it.
Are you talking about sending multiple messages over
the same connection
(ie. pipelining)? If so, I don't think this
proposal stops that at all,
in fact it allows it by saying things like "mechanisms
such as MakeConnection".
It was realized that there may be other ways for people
to determine
which backchannel is the "right one" and
we didn't to stop those from
working.
> * If we get this far: Why send the whole URI in the
wsrm:Address
> element? Why not just provide the supposedly-sufficient
UUID?
We talked about this and it would be a valid choice
but people thought
it would be less complicated if we just passed-in
the entire URI we
were interested in and not worry about concatenating
things.
> * Minor:
>
> [ <wsrm:Identifier> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Identifier> ] ?
>
> [ <wsrm:Address> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Address> ] ?
>
> should probably be
>
> ([ <wsrm:Identifier> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Identifier> ]
> [ <wsrm:Address> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Address> ] ?)
> | [ <wsrm:Address> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Address> ]
>
> or some such.
Well, need to work on this :-) There will be
a trade-off between
being BNF-correct and scaring people :-)
> thanx,
> doug
>
> On 31/05/06 19:12, Doug Davis wrote:
> > All,
> > the planets have aligned and we managed to come up with
a joint
> > proposal for the TC to discuss on tomorrow's call. Enjoy!
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]