ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [i089] comments on joint proposal
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:30:43 -0400
"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
wrote on 06/08/2006 03:21:54 PM:
> > 3- Now with an in-out exchange with (rel in / non-rel out), the
out
> > message is not mediated by any RMD-client. How would this out
> > message be delivered to its endpoint, in case the "in"
message was
> > resent by RMS-client? It probably should contain explicit endpoint
> > info (wsa:To?) but then how does the server know when to add
this,
> > while it would not have to if the in message originated from
the
> > sending endpoint vs. the RMS-client?
> > Are we saying that the anon URI template should be understood
> > outside RM components? (doesn't that fall under wsa scope, and
> > beyond wsrm scope?)
>
> Not sure I followed this but let me try...
> In the rel-in/non-rel-out case, if the RMS-client resends the
> rel-in message then I would suspect that all but one of those
> attempts would get back a 202 since all but one are dups.
> In the one non-202 case if the replyTo was anon then it would
> carry the response.
>
> But doesn't this assume that the "duplicate
elimination" delivery
> assurance is in effect between the RMD and the AD? Can we really
> assume this? Can we assume that the RMS is aware of this?
You're correct we can not assume that. However,
when dup
detection is in effect I think all but one would get
a 202.
In the non-dup-detection case, more than one might
return
a real response since more than one message made it
to the AD.
I don't think this is anything special and is true
even without
this polling shtuff.
thanks
-Doug
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]