Re: [wsrm] Duplicate of Delivered Fault revisited

[Sunil Kunisetty <Sunil.Kunisetty@oracle.com>]

 Tom,

 Good observation. For similar reasons, I didn't want to have batching of Acks
 on R-R. Infact, for all these reasons, I never wanted (or rather was never
 enthusiastic about)  RM support for WSDL 1.1 R-R operations.

 So we have couple of choices here:
 0)  Remove RM support completely for WSDL 1.1 R-R operations
 1)  Or , say DE doesn't make sense for R-R operations
 2)  Or,  create a new thing called 'warning' (like ack and fault) and
       for R-R DE case, deliver the msg. to the destination and send the
       response along with the 'warning'.
 3)  Or, just send a Http response back (i.e., response doesn't have any SOAP
      envelope or just SOAP envelope with no body/header/attachment entries.
 4)  Or, create a new fault for DE for R-R case and send the fault...

 The problem with 4 is that, if the Ack & Response was lost on the first invocation,
 he cannot ever get the response unless he changes the Message Id.

 I prefer (0), but I know it will be too drastic and critical at this stage. If not (0), I
 prefer (4).

 -Sunil

Tom Rutt wrote:

> I have come up with a scenario, that makes me want to reconsider sending
> an ack for a dupcate of delived message.
>
> Suppose we have a wsdl , non idempotent, request response operation type
> which the user wants to protect with ws-reliability.
>
> Lest look at the response reply patern .
>
> So if the first time the operation is invoked, the receiver will deliver
> it, and the operation response will carry the rm ack.
>
> Now if the sender gets nervous and resends just before it receives an
> ack, it will be detected as duplicate, by the receiving rmp.  Now
> the receiving rmp must not deliver this second operation invocation to
> the receiving app, so what does it put in the soap body for
> this response.  We are calling it a rm ack, so we will not trigger a
> fault condition.
>
> What would happen if the body was empty, with no indication of faulut in
> the ws response header.
>
> Perhaps we should return a "duplicateOf Delivered" fault code to convey
> the situation in an unambiguous manner.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt                email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
>
> 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.