RE: [ws-rx] Revised PR035 proposal

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Peter:

Why did you change the last sentence of InOrder def in a stronger requirement ? I think what you had before was better...

By saying now (for composition AtLeastOnce+InOrder):

" the RM Destination MUST NOT deliver any subsequent messages from that sequence until the missing messages are received or until the sequence is closed."

You are ruling out the following scenario:

- I am interested in having the RM layer do its best to transmit and deliver and tell me when it could not (error raised). So that's AtLeastOnce. But in addition I am also interested in having the messages that are delivered, to be delivered in order - even if there are gaps (e.g. the sender is monitoring quantitative indicators, and periodically sending report messages but it is OK to loose a few messages - as few as possible though - but the ordering is critical to reflect accurately the "trends").

I would keep InOrder+AtLeastOnce open enough by replacing your MUST NOT by SHOULD NOT above. Every flavor of ordered delivery can then be controlled with additional parameters such as our IncompleteSequenceBehavior (when its value is "DiscardFollowingFirstGap” that would achieve your current definition)

Minor edit, to catch-up with the new definition of "Deliver"

Replace "transfer"  with "delivery" in def of AtLeastOnce and of ExactlyOnce:

"...The requirement on the RM Destination is
that it SHOULD retry the transfer to the Application Destination of any message... "

Thanks,

Jacques

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 9:14 AM
To: Peter Niblett; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Revised PR035 proposal

Looks good. Thanks for pulling this together Peter.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Niblett [mailto:peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:15 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] Revised PR035 proposal


I have made some updates to this proposal, following discussions with Marc and Jacques. I have made some adjustments to the wording of the definitions of the DAs and to the description of the wsrmp:DeliveryAssurance assertion, and I have adopted the schema Assertion schema proposed by Marc.

It's also now all in one file which shows how Chapter 2 of the WSRM and Chapter 2 of the WSRMP specs would look.

(See attached file: RM_DA_Proposal.pdf)


Peter Niblett
IBM Senior Technical Staff Member