RE: [wsrm] Rel 44: Duplicate Elimination and Time To Live (TTL)

["Alan Weissberger" <ajwdct@technologist.com>]

Scott

I am totally supportive of the proposed fault/ack message flow.  Call it a "control flow."  It should be independent of the application/ data MEP and mandatory, in my opinion.  That would mean that 1 way application MEF should support the 2 way fault/ack message flow

I also am unsure if it needs to be described in WSDL, but it should use underlying SOAP and XML format

alan
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Werden <scottw@wrq.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:25:37 -0700
To: "''Paolo.Romano@dis.uniroma1.it''" <Paolo.Romano@dis.uniroma1.it>, Sunil Kunisetty <sunil.kunisetty@oracle.com>
Subject: RE: [wsrm] Rel 44:  Duplicate Elimination and Time To Live (TTL) 

> Paolo-
> 
> I agree with your description of the fault/ack message flow. I described the
> same thing in my email I sent yesterday. The important thing is that WS-RM
> may require an additional MEP, beyond the application level MEP defined in
> the WSDL, for it to carry out its ACK or fault, but this would be completely
> independent of, and would not affect, the application MEP. However, I am not
> sure this WS-RM MEP needs to ever be defined in the WSDL.
> 
> Scott
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paolo Romano [mailto:Paolo.Romano@dis.uniroma1.it] 
> > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:02 AM
> > To: Sunil Kunisetty; Paolo.Romano@dis.uniroma1.it
> > Cc: wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [wsrm] Rel 44: Duplicate Elimination and Time To 
> > Live (TTL)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > >  How does "using the Headers" solution solve the above 
> > case? If we have
> > >  to send the Fault in Headers (as HeaderFault), that will 
> > still result in
> > >  sending a SOAP response and the MEP gets altered.
> > >
> > >  So I fail to understand how the above unresolved case is solved?
> > >
> > >  -Sunil
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > I might be wrong, but my idea is the following: Let's 
> > consider the case when an
> > existing application has defined a one way MEP in its WSDL. 
> > If the application
> > layers itself upon WS-RM, the whole WSDL (ws-rm 
> > header+app.dependant) should
> > still be one-way. If a fault has to be sent back to the ws-rm 
> > sender processor,
> > this is still possible because the latter has defined a WSDL 
> > one-way operation
> > for receiving the ack. This message globally alters the MEP 
> > and I suppose this
> > is what you do not like of this approach.
> > Anyway this is a WS-RM level message, not an application 
> > level message.
> > Therefore, it does not alter the application defined MEP, 
> > which is one-way. In
> > fact, if the WS-RM receiving processor sends back a fault, 
> > then the message is
> > not delivered to the application, and the application one-way 
> > MEP just does not
> > take place.
> > 
> > In other words, the application defined MEP simply does not 
> > take place, because
> > the message is stopped at the ws-rm receiver. There is no 
> > problem with sending
> > back a fault message, because we have defined a ws-rm wsdl 
> > one-way operation to
> > receive acks and faullts. So we have a one-way only from the 
> > ws-rm sender to the
> > ws-receiver, followed by an asynch response always at the same layer.
> > 
> > I do not know if I have been clear, I think my idea could be 
> > better explained
> > with some pictures but I am overwhelmed with work at the moment...
> > 
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > 
> > Paolo
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Paolo Romano
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.ph
> p
> 
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php
> 



Alan Weissberger
2013 Acacia Ct
Santa Clara, CA 95050-3482
1 408 863 6042 voice
1 408 863 6099 fax