[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Head to head comparison of all three MakeConnection variants
In an effort to clarify where/why BEA stands on PR001 I have written the attached article comparing all three variants off the MakeConnection feature (Sequence-ID, RM-Anon, and PR001 proposal). I scoped the comparison to the two (count them!) use cases BEA actually cares about. I concentrated on two major implementation aspects: 1.) How does the server-side RMS assign message(s) to the server->client sequence? 2.) How does the MakeConnection message select which message(s) should be returned over the back-channel. For those of you too busy to read the article here's the conclusions: ------- The only effective difference between the PR001 Mechanism and the Sequence-ID Mechanism is that the former allows for the dynamic creation of new server->client sequences. Since none of the use cases of interest to BEA require this capability, this difference is irrelevant in the scope of this analysis. Given that the PR001 Mechanism is more complicated than the Sequence-ID Mechanism, BEA sees no compelling reason to replace the Sequence-ID Mechanism with the PR001 Mechanism. Furthermore the RM-Anon Mechanism is preferable to both the Sequence-ID Mechanism and the PR001 Mechanism due to the fact that it is more flexible with respect to assigning response messages to "back-sequences" and does not require the server-side RM handler to track the relationship between request and response messages. - gp <<MC-Head2Head.zip>>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]