wsn message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsn] Pull proposal [1.4]
- From: Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Wilson, Kirk D" <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:46:49 -0400
Hi Kirk:
The only standards based way that I
know of, is to have the PullPoint support WSRF-RL, and then the NP can
subscribe for the notificatoin that WSRF-RL defines to notify interested
parties about the destruction of WS-Resource. Otherwise, there is
no standard way to have the NP know the PullPoint has been destroyed. There
is of course, the possibility the PullPoint uses some internal, implementation-specific
mechanism of notifying the NP, but this is not something I feel the Notificaiton
TC should be standardized.
sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, IBM Software Group, Web services and SOA
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++
"Wilson, Kirk D"
<Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>
05/20/2005 11:06 AM
|
To
| Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
| <wsn@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| RE: [wsn] Pull proposal [1.4] |
|
Steve, I guess in the real
world NCs will and do “suddenly” become unavailable. But I would
assume that if a NC destroys a PullPoint it has created, it means that
the NC is no longer interested in getting the messages provided by the
PullPoint as opposed to an NC going down and coming back up. Therefore,
I would prefer to use the word “permanently” become unavailable, rather
than “suddenly”. I would see the lack of notification to the NP
in the “permanent” situation as leaving the NP “high and dry”. I
would have expected a more ‘”friendly” environment in situations where
things are under systematic control.
Kirk Wilson
Technical Specialist
603 823 4023
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 10:42 AM
To: Wilson, Kirk D
Cc: wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsn] Pull proposal [1.4]
Hi Kirk:
interesting question with respect to the Pull Point destruction. However,
from the perspective of a NP, the PullPoint is just another NC. Do
you think that the PullPoint going away is somehow different than any generic
NC suddenly being unavailable to receive NotificationMessages delivered
through the Notify or through a "raw" message send?
sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, IBM Software Group, Web services and SOA
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++
"Wilson, Kirk D"
<Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>
05/20/2005 10:23 AM
|
To
| Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
<wsn@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [wsn] Pull proposal [1.4] |
|
Steve,
There something that is unclear to me regarding the proposal as presented
in your attachment. Messages are to be sent by the NP to the PullPoint
through the PullPoint’s Notify operation. Upon destruction of the
PP, doesn’t the NP need to be “informed” that messages no longer need
to be sent to that PullPoint. Shouldn’t that point be made in the
proposal, or at least raised as an implementation issue?
Kirk Wilson
Technical Specialist
603 823 4023
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 12:26 AM
To: wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsn] Pull proposal [1.4]
Here is a write up of the Pull Proposal we agreed to. Please comment
on surprises/accuracy. I include text that illustrates the scenarios
relating the incoming wrapped and raw messages with the responses to GetMessages
request.
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, IBM Software Group, Web services and SOA
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]