Re: [wsrm] Preliminary minutes of WSRM TC Conf call -050603

[Sunil Kunisetty <Sunil.Kunisetty@oracle.com>]

 Hi Colleen,

Colleen Evans wrote:

> Hi Sunil,
> I see a few potential issues with the proposed opton:
>  i) Get rid of MId and have GId/Sid set. Gid could be optional & SId
>     is mandatory. If Gid is present, SId is the unique in that GId. If not,
>     SId should be globally unique.
>
> (1) RM would use a GId/SId set to uniquely identify messages, while other features /
> extensions in the same SOAP message may use a different mechanism(s).  Could get
> pretty messy and difficult to manage and synchronize.

 Is this not a general issue? Even if we use MId, what is guarantee that other extensions
 use the same tag, they may use their own Ids.

 Until there is a standard (& universally accepted) for references & MessageIDs for
 Web Services, we will have this problem. (No, WS-Addressing is not a solution :))

>
>
> (2) Even where sequencing is not required, a GId/SId set would be required to uniquely
> identify messages for other RM features.

 Can you elaborate further? I think we could overload the semantics of SId and solve
 the problems unless I'm missing something.

 Again that's just one of my random thoughts. I'll ponder more on that myself.

 -Sunil



>
>
> It seems preferable to provide a message identification mechanism that isn't coupled
> with sequencing or any particular feature.  That was the intent in the current
> WS-Reliability spec where MessageID is in the MessageHeader with other 'generic'
> information such as From, To, etc., and GroupID and SequenceNumber are in the
> MessageOrder header and only used for ordering.
>
> Colleen