[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Draft Agenda for Tuesday April 8 WSRM TC meeting Teleconference]
What might be a clarification is that the ack should be able to be included on a reliable message being sent in the reverse direction to an original request message. Thus, while WSDL would be "one way" messages, one could have them flow in two directions with a piggyback of acks with messages. Tom Rutt Fujitsu iwasa wrote: > 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 > > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]