Re: [wsrm] Draft Agenda for Tuesday April 8 WSRM TC meeting Teleconference]

["iwasa" <kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Magdolna,

Right. Strictly speaking, RPC might not be appropriate terminology.
I meant the synchronous request/response message
exchange pattern, when I said RPC in the former e-mail.

Iwasa

--

Hi,

I'm a bit confused about the terminology used: "synchronous RPC". Do you
mean here synchronous request/response message exchange pattern, allowing
much more general message data structure ? In my understanding RPC (Remote
Procedure Call) describes a special one.

br,
Magdolna

-----Original Message-----
From: ext iwasa [mailto:kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com]
Sent: April 08,2003 6:38
To: wsrm-TC
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Draft Agenda for Tuesday April 8 WSRM TC meeting
Teleconference]


All,

I would like to raise one discussion item for charter.
Currently, out of scope items include "Synchronous RPC
at the application level", but it would require a clarification.

This was originally included here to simplify the spec,
since including both RM and RPC sometimes
make the spec confusing.

However it was not intended to prohibit to use the spec
for synchronous RPC at application level. So it means
we could include how to use the spec for RPC. And the
spec shouldn't prohibit to do so.

Thus, I would like to propose making a clarification
for the sentence with one of the following options:

1.Adding a clarification like:
Synchronous RPC at the application level.
*Note this is included here to simplify the spec,
  since including both RM and RPC sometimes
  make the spec confusing. This doesn't mean the spec
  should not be used for synchronous RPC at application
  level, but the spec must allow to do so. In addition to this,
  the spec may have normative description how the
  spec is used for "Synchronous RPC at the application
  level", if appropriate.

2. Removing the sentence to avoid miss-understanding.

And I would propose #2 option above.
Thanks,

Iwasa