[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related touse of extended anonymous uri
Anish I don't agree with this point. RM is composing with the existing flow to *add* reliability. There are many reasons that the server cannot reply on the backchannel - network failures, timeouts, etc. In those cases the original contract for delivery is over, since WS-A and SOAP have no inherent retry or retransmission model. WS-A does not and should not say what goes on beyond that original request/response. If or how the reply gets returned beyond that point is not WS-A's concern. That is when RM should kick in. At no point was it the intention or the result of WS-A to prevent the composability with reliability with the existing URI schemes. I suggest anyone who has any doubt about this carefully rereads the distinction between "response" and "reply" in the WS-A spec. Paul Anish Karmarkar wrote: > Doug Davis wrote: >> >> IIRC there were some other reasons as well. > > Another reason that was discussed was: > is it even valid to use the WS-A 'anon' URI for this? > WS-A 'anon' URI in a ReplyTo/FaultTo says, send the reply/fault in the > HTTP-response (back-channel) of *this* connection (in the SOAP/HTTP > binding case), whereas the WS-RM 'anon' URI in a ReplyT/FaultTo means > send the reply/fault in the HTTP-response of this connection (in the > SOAP/HTTP binding case) or *any* HTTP-response of a connection created > using the wsrm:MakeConnection message with the correct/same UUID. > > -Anish > -- > > <snip/> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]