ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR022: updated proposal
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:56:40 -0500
Gil,
I understand your concerns with
adding it to the Close but I still think it would be nice if we could find
a way to do it - forcing a sequence to wait for a Terminate after a Close
before it can complete it works (in some configurations). Also, I
may have missed the "MUST" but I don't think the Terminate is
required to be sent - the RMS may choose to just let the Sequence timeout.
Wouldn't this cause an interop issue - because the RMD may not get this
new info that we've now added to the TS message and also because the IncompletSeqBahvior
can't do its job (when set to DiscardEntireSeq) w/o it?
-Doug
"Gilbert Pilz"
<Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
11/03/2006 12:59 PM
|
To
| <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [ws-rx] PR022: updated proposal |
|
The attached update incorporates the Chris and PaulF's
feedback.
A number of people have said that they would like to see LastMsgNumber
in CloseSequence as well. While I'm somewhat sympathetic to this idea,
from my point of view it adds a lot of complication to the spec for
little benefit. We have to say that LastMsgNumber must appear in either
CS or TS and possibly both. If it appears in both CS and TS then the
values have to agree (we might need to define a new fault to cover the
case where they don't agree). We'd have to say that if you include
LastMsgNumber in CS then you didn't necessarily have to send the TS, but
that if you didn't include LastMsgNumber in CS (or didn't send a CS)
then you *do* have to send a TS with LastMsgNumber, etc.
- gp
<<wsrm-1.1-spec-pr-i022.pdf>>
[attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-pr-i022.pdf" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]