Re: [wsrm] message headers for Ack and Fault ??

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Tom Rutt wrote:

> Tom Rutt wrote:
>
>> Jacques Durand wrote:
>>
>>> Could someone remind me why we need an RM:MessageHeader element for 
>>> Ack and Fault messages?
>>> I could not justify this to our implementor Hamid.
>>> Such headers could not possibly have a meaning for these signals, as
>>> they would have to fully relate to a business response that we want 
>>> to be reliable, in case
>>> of request-response pattern, or more generally in case these signals 
>>> piggy-back on business messages.
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>> If we do not have a business reason to give the response its own 
>> identity for WS-relibability protocol, then
>> we should do that.
>>
>> I do not see any requirement in our Requirements document which 
>> warrants the Message header for a reply which
>> is not itself a reliable message. 
>
>
> I mistyped here.  What I meant to say is we have to justify the need  
> for a unique message ID for the reply, unless itself is piggybacking a 
> reliable message in the return direction.   I cannot come up with a 
> reason.  The messageID for the request serves for all logging purposes. 

The other two elements of the message header are expiry time and reply 
pattern.

The expiry time is not necessary for a reply (it is a total waste of 
bandwidth for the reply to include this element), and the reply pattern 
must be the same on a reply as a request, so why bother sending either.




>
>
>>
>>
>> In fact, this would clarify that a reliable message is one which has 
>> a rm:messageHeader.
>>
>> The response is not a reliable mesage, unless it is using piggybacking.
>>
>> Lets open a new issue on this one.
>>
>> Tom Rutt
>> WSRM Chair
>>
>
>


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