Re: [ws-rx] [i089] comments on joint proposal

[Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>]

Jacques

Comments
>
> 4- If MakeConnection supports both a seq ID and an Address argts, then 
> I assume both need be supported by any implementation, for 
> interoperability. SO it looks like this is where the two previous 
> proposals merged here.
>
Yes. Any server implementation needs to support both approaches. 
However, any client can choose which approach it likes when initiating 
this kind of setup.
>
> As much as I had sympathy for the ID-based proposal, it appears that 
> the Address alone is sufficient here (even in case of offered 
> sequence) so I am questioning the need for both here...
>
I don't agree. I have been focusing on what I consider the simplest use 
case.

In this scenario the client wishes to do one-way and req-reply to the 
server with two-way reliability. The client has no shared endpoints, no 
out-only, etc. The RM layer doesn't "mess" with the WS-Addressing 
headers. Instead it offers a sequence. Everything happens as normal with 
the exception of sequence headers and seq acks. If a response message 
happens to go missing, then the client can MakeConnection with the 
offered ID and get the message.

In particular there is no need to rewrite the addressing headers at the 
WSRM layer in this scenario.

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