ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] PR022: strawman proposal
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:28:50 -0500
I'm not thrilled with making Close a
required operation since I think it really should remain necessary only
when things go wrong. So how about:
LastMsgNum SHOULD be on Close and Terminate
- but it is optional.
If not there then the RMD MUST assume
there are gaps at the end and for IncompletSeqBeh==DiscardAll, it would
discard the entire sequence. For other values it has no effect.
thanks
-Doug
__________________________________________________
STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6906 | dug@us.ibm.com
"Bob Freund-Hitachi"
<bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
12/14/2006 09:43 AM
|
To
| Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Gilbert
Pilz" <gpilz@bea.com>
|
cc
| "Hal Lockhart" <hlockhar@bea.com>,
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| RE: [ws-rx] PR022: strawman proposal |
|
I would seriously prefer mandating
close with re-tries as required or indication of a final (empty) sequence
message.
-bob
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:17 AM
To: Gilbert Pilz
Cc: Hal Lockhart; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR022: strawman proposal
This would imply that if a TerminateSequence is sent (w/o a Close) and
there is a gap at the end of the Sequence that the RMD will think the Sequence
is complete and when IncompleteSeqBehavior is set to 'discardEntireSequence'
will not discard anything. This could leave the RMS and RMD in different
states - is this ok to the originators of the IncompleteSeqBehavior feature?
thanks
-Doug
__________________________________________________
STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6906 | dug@us.ibm.com
"Gilbert Pilz"
<gpilz@bea.com>
12/14/2006 03:49 AM
|
To
| <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
| "Hal Lockhart" <hlockhar@bea.com>
|
Subject
| [ws-rx] PR022: strawman proposal |
|
From previous discussions on this issue it is evident that the TC doesn't
think that the motivating requirement is pressing enough to justify any
large changes to the spec (i.e. making TerminateSequence or CloseSequence
required). With that in mind I propose that we resolve this issue by doing
the following:
1.) Adding the mandatory LastMsgNumber
element to CloseSequence. As previously discussed, the description of LastMsgNumber
should be something along the lines of:
The LastMsgNumber element specifies the highest
assigned message number of all the Sequence Traffic Messages for the Sequence
being closed. The RM Destination can use this information, for example,
to implement the behavior indicated by wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse/wsrm:IncompleteSequenceBehavior.
2.) The use of CloseSequence remains
optional. Any agreement between the RMS and the RMD about the use of CloseSequence
to allow the RMD to determine if it has succesfully received all the messages
sent by the RMS is out of scope.
3.) An RMS that sends a CloseSequence
but does not receive a CloseSequenceResponse is free to retry the CloseSequence
message or not depending upon local policy etc.
- gp
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]