Re: [wsrm] Rel 33 and Rel 50, follow-up

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Jacques Durand wrote:

> Tom: inline <JD>
>

I like your new wording very much.

thank you

Tom Rutt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 10:46 AM
> To: Jacques Durand
> Cc: 'wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: Re: [wsrm] Rel 33 and Rel 50, follow-up
>
>
> > *Message Delivery*:
> > Action of transfering the responsibility of processing further a 
> message,
> > from the RMP and onto the next processor entity. This action marks
> > the end of the RMP processing for this message. The time at which this
> > action
> > occurs must be clearly indentifiable so that the next message processor
> > can always establish in which order two deliveries are made.
> > Examples of delivery are: pushing the message in a queue accessible by
> > an application,
> > calling back an application component, storing the message in a
> > database where
> > it is accessible by the next processor.
> > 
> > *Acknowledgement*:
> > An acknowledgement is a message containing an RM:Response element
> > referring
> > to at least one previous message (and containing no RM:Fault element).
>
>
> > An acknowledgement means that the acknowledged message has been
> > completely and
> > successfully delivered (see Message Delivery).
>
> This sounds too strong
> Something like the following (with wordsmithing required)
> " An ack means that the acknowledged message has satisfied all the
> ws-reliabiliy requirements placed on it for delivery, and the receiving
> user has accepted the responsibility for completion of delivery, using 
> the mechanism specified in its contract with the Receiving Reliable
> message processor.."
>
> <JD> Tom: I don't think the statement was too strong, if you read 
> carefully the above
> definition of "delivery", which is nothing more than a transfer of 
> *responsibility*
> to the next layer or processor - which is in fact aligned with what 
> you propose.
> So "delivery" does not mean here the actual transfer of the message to 
> its final
> destination/user, in which case I would agree with you.
> However, I take it that my def could be confusing.
> How about a more explicit def taking the best of your comments, but 
> restating
> the definition of "delivery" above:
>
>         "An acknowledgement means that the acknowledged message has been
>         successfully delivered, meaning simply that it has satisfied 
> all the
>         reliability requirements placed on it for delivery, and that 
> the RMP
>         having made the message available to its next processor, is no 
> longer
>         responsible for processing it further."
>
> Note that we don't need any mention of "users", and even more of 
> "acceptance".
>
> Regards,
>
> Jacques
>


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