[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] PR022: updated proposal
So: 1.) If you send a CS, then it must have a LastMsgNumber. 2.) If you send a TS, then it must have a LastMsgNumber. What if you don't send either a CS or a TS? Somehow we need to restore the "must-ness" that was associated with LastMsg. - gp > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 10:46 AM > To: Gilbert Pilz > Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR022: updated proposal > > 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 > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]