[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Singleton group with SequenceNumber?
Tony Graham wrote: > Sunil Kunisetty <sunil.kunisetty@oracle.com> wrote at Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:58:00 -0800: > > Tom Rutt wrote: > > > Tony Graham wrote: > > > >>From off-list mail: > > > > > > > >Sunil Kunisetty <sunil.kunisetty@oracle.com> wrote at Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:49:54 -0800: > ... > > > >A group of 1 is not valid since the 'status' attribute can't indicate > > > >both the start and end of a group, and the 'status' value has to be > > > >'Start' for the first message in a group (line 989): > > > > > > > > The sender node MUST send a very first message, to guarantee the > > > > message order, with "Start" for this attribute. > > > > Here is the glitch. The 'end' message is NOT A MUST for a group to > > be complete. As such the group can be terminated (and hence completed) > > by other criteria such as group expiry time, max idle duration etc... > > groupMaxIdleDuration="0" would terminate the group sometime in the > next second, yes. correct.. > > Just because it would work doesn't make me think that purposely > creating groups of 1 is to be recommended. > yes, I think we already say that in the spec., if not, we should say this/ > > > So 'end' message is just a convenience. We cannot enforce that every > > group MUST only be completed by an 'end' message. > > Understood. > > > > >... > > > > > > > >> Currently there is no way to distinguish a Group with only one message > > > >> (that uses SequenceNum) as a Singleton unless Request Header is > > > >> also changed to reflect something similar. > > > > > > > >Then Section 2.3 should be changed or the 'status' attribute should > > > >allow a 'Single' value (or similar). At this point I think that it > > > >would be simpler to change Section 2.3. > > > > I think this is not necessary as I explained above. It may help a > > a group of 1 message case, but then it will be very error prone > > for other cases. > > I think I see your point. > > If a sending RMP dies after successfully sending the first message in > a group and picks a new Group Id when it restarts, that first message > just became a group of 1. So groups of 1 can happen even if we > legislate against them. > correct... that's my whole point. > > > > I agree it would be easier to have a singleton group never use the > > > sequence no in its request. > > > > We really cannot enforce this and atmost can suggest in bold letters > > that it is efficient for singleton messages to be without no seq.o. > > I think that the spec should make it seem like less of an option. > agree. > > > > If this was the case, how would your proposed schema for the > > > messageReplies look like? > > I need to rethink. > > Regards, > > Tony Graham > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Web Products, Technologies and Standards Phone: +353 1 8199708 > Sun Microsystems x(70)19708 > East Point Business Park, Dublin 3, Ireland > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]