Re: [wsrm] Action item for ReplyTo definition

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

 

 Hi Patrick,

 Yes, the above is the one I proposed earlier. Infact, It should be okay
 if ReplyTo is made a sub-element of ' AckRequested' element itself.
 My main aim is to tie ReplyTo to AckRequested as that's the only
 case it is used.

 Whether it is an attribute or sub-element is secondary. Since ackPattern
 was already an attribute, I preferred it as an attribute. Either both (ackPattern
 and replyTo) should be attributes or sub-elements.

It's good to tie ReplyTo and AckRequested together. In terms of extensibility, I think it will be more flexible to place ReplyTo as a sub-element. For example, shall we need a secondary ReplyTo address in the future? Will ReplyTo be some logical identifier with type attribute in the future? If so, sub-element will be better.

AckRequested and ReplyTo don't have to be both attributes or both sub-elements, right?
 

 That's correct. But the comment I made was for ackPattern and not AckRequested.
 ackPattern is the new name for a previous attribute name 'synchronous'.

 But again even for ackPattern, it's not a MUST but rather a SHOULD for consistency
 sake.

 -Sunil