Re: [wsrm] Why not Get Rid of Request Header

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Tom Rutt wrote:

> Here is a counterproposal for consideration and comment:
> 
> Lets look at the request message type.
> <xsd:complexType name="RequestType">
>        <xsd:complexContent>
>            <xsd:extension base="wsrm:RmBaseType">
>                <xsd:sequence>
>                    <xsd:element name="DuplicateElimination" 
> type="wsrm:EmptyType" minOccurs="0"/>
>                    <xsd:element name="AckRequested" 
> type="wsrm:EmptyType" minOccurs="0"/>
>                </xsd:sequence>
>            </xsd:extension>
>        </xsd:complexContent>
>    </xsd:complexType>
> 
> I has two empty elements which are flags for some protocol operation.
> 
> Now if we had the presence of groupID be the trigger for acknowledement 
> features, we
> could get rid of one empty element.
> 
> Lets go one step further, we could require sequence numbers for 
> duplicate elimination (due to
> simplification of algorithm design) and use the sequence number as the 
> signal for duplicate elimination features.

Actually we could put the duplicate elimination as an attribute of group id.



-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133