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

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Sunil Kunisetty wrote:

>Tom Rutt wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Sunil Kunisetty wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I don't think that restriction is warranted. What is important is the Poll
>>>request is initiated by the Sender in a different transaction/connection
>>>than the original message. How the response (Ack or Fault) is sent
>>>is an implementation issue and doesn't effect our protocol one way
>>>or other.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I do not understand.  The justification for poll is when the sender
>>cannot accept http requests.
>>    
>>
>
> While that is the primary justification, that's not the only one. For your
> recollection, other use cases are avoid resends & for  thin clients.
>
> Also, that would have been the prominent one if Poll was only used for
> that scenario, and not with other patterns. However, now that we allow
> Poll to be used for Callbacks and Response patterns also, then the  use
> case I suggested is much more valid.
>  
>
I agree that the poll request can be used to obtain status infomation 
for reliable messages sent using any reply pattern.

The point I am making is that the poll request is always (by definition 
and design) mapped to an underlying request/response protocol.

Thus there is no problem distinguishing a delayed callback response 
(which is always on an underlying request) from a poll response
(which is always on a underlying response).

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