Re: [ws-rx] PR022: updated proposal

[Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>]

What about saying it MUST appear in CS and TS, and the number in TS MUST 
be the same as was in CS?
Paul

Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> Logically if LastMsgNumber appears only in TS then sending a TS is a 
> MUST. This isn't to say that an RMD that, for whatever reason, doesn't 
> care about LastMsgNumber can't clean up a sequence after CS.
>  
> - gp
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
>     *Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2006 2:57 PM
>     *To:* Gilbert Pilz
>     *Cc:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>     *Subject:* Re: [ws-rx] PR022: updated proposal
>
>
>     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]
>

-- 
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2 
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com
(646) 290 8050

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com