Re: [wsrm] Rel YY

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Sunil Kunisetty wrote:

>  
>  Jacques,
>
>  Oracle will be supporting this proposal. However, I prefer that 
> SequenceNumber
>  be Optional rather than mandatory as you indicated in (P2). I 
> understand that it will
>  be difficult for schema validation, but I believe it will be much 
> simpler and efficient
>  for implementations.
>
>  So essentially we should categorize all RM  into 3 different 
> categories based on
>  the elements used in RM Headers:
>
>  1) Grouped and Ordered Messages:          Group Id + Seq No.  + 
> Message Order
>                                                                       
> Same Group Id, Different Seq No.
>
>  2) Grouped and Un-Ordered Messages:    Group Id + Seq No.
>                                                                       
> Same Group Id, Different Seq No.
>
>  3) Discrete & Independent RM Messages: Group Id
>
>  We could then use the SequenceNumber sub-element has the toggle 
> switch to
>  distinguish Grouped Un-ordered with Discrete & Independent messages. An
>  implementation could then use 3 different Hash Tables to store the 
> IDs, thus
>  making DE much more efficient.
>
Do you mean one separate hash table for eacy of the three categories of 
message processing in the
above list?

> This will be better than having this element and requiring the value 
> to be '0' for
> un-ordered grouped messages.
>
> We should strongly recommend in our Spec. that applications such use
> grouped ordered or un-ordered messages as much as possible.
>
>  Comments?
>
>  -Sunil
>  
>
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133