See some more comments.
next action will be to revise Rel52, 57 based on this.
more inline comments, though.
Sunil Kunisetty [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:06 AM
Re: [wsrm] Proposed resolution for Rel 50
have been thinking about the two proposed semantics for ExpiryTime, and
I do not see them as different as I thought initially.
was my point all along.
Either assume that it was application's responsibility and leave all the
[I disagree with this, but stating it]
If we are doing Expiry checks, might as well do it when the realm of RMP
when RMP makes the message available to the user. I hardly see any gain
in doing any
checks at the time of receiving.
Durand] from our implementation perspective (Fujitsu), we certainly see
a significant benefit in checking ExpiryTime at reception time, as
we don't want to process further and do duplicate checks on messages that
we know up-front will never make it to the app. (So two checks will be
in order for us.)
will be definitely simpler, but to me it's a broken semantics... I don't
check is a burden.
there is more to fix even if we keep previous semantics: the "processing
model" we had outlined in last f-2-f Wednesday minutes, 6.2 Rel50) does
not hold anymore, w/r to Acks: If you don't require an up-front expiration
check, that means you will Ack positively an expired message, then later
send an Error for non-delivery to app due to expiration.
do we need to do that? We can use the same processing logic on the Sender
identify such expired messages. I think we need to define the Processing
Model for Sender.
must admit yours is also the original one as currently worded in the spec.Although
I'm not proposing anything new. Just want the current semantics to stand.
the current semantics adds unnecessary checks and cases, and pretends to
thing would be one additional "timestamp" stamp. This is a drop in the
ocean especially we
have to do many other checks for DE and trying to compute the max(ExpiryTimes)
of the other parameters are available.
per the rules on the Sender, the same rules apply irrespective of it. For
ex., we cannot
even otherwise that Ack means that the Receiver will always make the Msg.
the User. Because, after sending an Ack. for an out-of-order Msg., the
Group may have
before it was every made available. So the Sender still has to obey the
I mentioned in one of my previous rules. Essentially, the rules on the
group termination/removal applies to the Sender also. So I don't see any
on the rules by saying that ExpiryTime semantics are the current TTL semantics.
Durand] If we keep it as is, one
more rule now for not delivering an Acked message, is that if it expires.
Agree group termination does not seem to be affected much one way or the
was the point I was making at the F2F.. which no one seems to caring :))
flavor that is no substitute tobusiness-level timeout handling in the application
in my view, I can settle with this.
inconsistencies you still see in my proposal (your scenario case), however,
I contend only occur if you authorize the Sender to bump-up ExpiryTime
whenresending a message, which I still strongly oppose (and the current
spec is on myside on this, see 3.1.4 in V0.7). Indeed, I believe this ExpiryTime
update does not have any semantic ground, and introduces all sorts of complications,
from dup elimination to group expiration management.
believe I can clarify the semantics very clearly without any confusion.
However as I said in my
mail, this is not a big deal for us and we can still certainly live with
the fact that ExpiryTimes
Durand] I’d prefer to keep ExpiryTime immutable, once it is set… (so
all in all, we keep as much of the current spec as we can :)
thought of another discrepancy with this model, but I don't seem to recollect
ExpiryTime as defined currently seems to now reflect an app to app contract,
and has no reason to see its value upgraded for a given message, I believe,
due to underlying transport/RMP mishaps.
you agree with this analysis?
but that will have a bearing on RMP implementation for persistence and
Durand] And I think this bearing is positive, but let us postpone
this debate :)
Indeed it is a positive one.