Re: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related touse of extended anonymous uri

[Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>]

Doug

 > In my mind its the same component that checks for "none" on any 
outgoing message and take a specialized action.

It would really help me understand your issue if you actually explained 
it! Its still not clear what you imagine is happening here.

I'm really not clear why any component other than the RM level component 
needs to look at this special reference parameter.
Suppose I have a request-response with this EPR = (anon + rmpolling ref 
parameter).

The server is trying to send a response back to the client. Before it 
gets to the transport level handling, the RM handler stores the message 
in some message store.
If there is a sequence already in existence, the RX handler also adds a 
sequence header to it.

Then the transport tries to deliver the message. If the correct 
transport backchannel exists, it should deliver that message right then. 
If not, then the message is lost - just as if there was no RM handling 
in place.

Of course if there is no sequence in play, I would expect that message 
to be stored and a CreateSequence message to be stored as well. At some 
point we hope the MakeConnection will come in and pick up those messages.

Paul




Doug Davis wrote:
>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
> *Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>*
>
> 09/27/2006 08:16 AM
>
> 	
> To
> 	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
> 	Gilbert Pilz <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject
> 	Re: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related to 
> use of extended anonymous uri
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug
>
> > > Can you explain which bit of the processing chain you are thinking of?
> >
> > I imagine that all soap engines have some if-statement, someplace, that
> > checks for anon/none - what I like about our current solution is that we
> > are asking them to simply add more if's (or else's) to that existing
> > logic - no matter where it may be.  Checking for certain ref-p's on an
> > outgoing message is not something I feel comfortable with assuming
> > everyone
> > does today, therefore I viewed this as a pretty radical change.
> I still don't understand exactly which component you expect to be
> checking for refp's on outgoing messages? Is the handling an anonymous
> response and deciding how to deal with it?
>
> Paul
>