[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Rel YY
Doug, Doug Bunting wrote: > Tom and Sunil, > > Is this issue about preferences against attributes or against using > attributes to drive somewhat larger decisions? I am primarily curious It's the latter. > > though it might make me lean one way or the other. > > At the moment, one thing seems necessary to me is preventing a sender > including a request for ordering but no sequence number or ending a If the decision making is based on the values of the attributes or elements, we cannot enforce it by schema. > > group that is not ordered. How exactly those things are tied together > and how the schema prevents four or six categories where only three have > "meaning" seems much less important. But, I would certainly prefer the > proposed MessageOrder element or similar attributes *not* be allowed (in > the schema, not just the text) without the existing SequenceNumber element. Both the proposals (Jacques's initial proposal and my amended one) do require SequenceNumber. The only difference is I wanted it to be Optional, where as Jacques wanted it to be mandatory. > > > I also believe (going the other way) that it is better to restrict a > messaging schema so that each thing you want to "say" can be said in Agree. > > only one way. If we re-introduce the MessageOrder element or add more > to the SequenceNumber attributes to introduce the same categorization, > we should remove any (overlapping) special semantics for a > SequenceNumber of 0. At this time we are only listing alternate choices. We eventually have to pick one, not both. -Sunil
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]