Re: Fw: [ws-rx] Issue 129: Define "discard"

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

I am not really excited about this "is this observable?" sub-issue.  My 
preference is to avoid passive voice ("... behaviour exhibited by ...") 
and, therefore, I'd rather go with Matt's other ("... behaviour 
equivalent to the ...") suggestion or your suggestion below, Paul, if we 
must change something more here.

I have trouble parsing "behaviour exhibited by AD never processing a 
message" in any case.  Based on the context of this thread though, I 
certainly understand the intent.  Will our readers?

How many of the hopefully-few AS / RMS and RMD / AS interactions 
described in the current document go so far in making the observable 
nature of the statements clear?  Do those instances use "behaviour", 
"exhibited", "equivalent", "observable", "indicates", or some other 
terminology?

thanx,
    doug

On 16/06/06 13:51, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> Doug
>
> Logically if a transaction rolls back then the message is not 
> "processed", because any processing is undone. In fact worrying about 
> the difference between not processing it and rolling it back is 
> definitely "getting into implementation details".
>
> So here is what I would propose - (slighty reworded again).
> In the following definitions of allowable values, the term 'discard'
> indicates that a particular message is not processed by the 
> Application Destination.
>
> My problem with the other text is that I don't think its clear. I have 
> to say I have some sympathy with the view Jacques expressed: that this 
> is the one and only point in the text where the word deliver is 
> applicable.
>
> Paul
>
>
> Doug Davis wrote:
>>
>> The problem with that wording, as Matt was eluding to, is that the AD 
>> may actually process
>> the message - and that's ok as long as it gets rolled back if the 
>> system determines that due
>> to gaps the transaction is aborted. Hence the "behavior exhibited" 
>> part - meaning as long
>> as it "appears" as though the message wasn't processed.
>> -doug
>>
>>
>>
>> *Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>*
>>
>> 06/16/2006 03:30 PM
>>
>>     
>> To
>>     Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>> cc
>>     ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject
>>     Re: Fw: [ws-rx] Issue 129: Define "discard"
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can I propose this wording:
>>
>> In the following definitions of allowable values, the term 'discard'
>> indicates that the Application Destination does not process a particular
>> message.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> Doug Davis wrote:
>> >
>> > Based on Matt's suggestion, I'd like Bob and DougB to see if this new
>> > text is ok:
>> >
>> > /wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse/wsrm:IncompleteSequenceBehavior
>> > This element, if present, specifies the behavior that the RM
>> > Destination will exhibit upon the closure, or termination, of an
>> > incomplete sequence. For the purposes of defining the values used, the
>> > term 'discard' refers to behavior exhibited by the Application
>> > Destination never processing a particular message.
>> >
>> > A value of “DiscardEntireSequence” indicates that the entire Sequence
>> > MUST be discarded by the RM Destination if the sequence is closed, or
>> > terminated, when there are one or more gaps in the final
>> > SequenceAcknowledgement.
>> >
>> > A value of “DiscardFollowingFirstGap” indicates that messages in the
>> > Sequence beyond the first gap MUST be discarded by the RM Destination
>> > if the Sequence is closed, or terminated, when there are one or more
>> > gaps in the final SequenceAcknowledgement.
>> >
>> > The default value of “NoDiscard” indicates that no acknowledged
>> > messages in the sequence will be discarded by the RM Destination.
>> >
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > -Doug
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>