[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Refinements of comments 7 and 9 [Re: [wsrm] Proposed clarificaitonresolutions to Ferris comments 1,2,24,5,7,9,16,19]
Doug: I basically agree with the direction of your change, however in some cases, the api may have the consumer invoke the deliver operation, in a polling kind of api. Thus, support is ambiguous enough to allow such an implementation. Do you think the RMP is always the invoker of deliver? If so , we should clarify that way,but does this cause any implementation problems? I am not sure, that is why I am asking\ Tom Rutt Doug Bunting wrote: > Tom, > > For both of these comments, your suggestions need a bit more to solve > the issues Chris was kind enough to identify. > > On 14-Jul-04 13:58, Tom Rutt wrote: > > ... > >> Comment 7: Message Delivery is not the end of Receiving RMP processing >> >> Proposed clarification: >> >> Lines 204-206: change >> >> “ >> >> Message Delivery: >> >> The action of invoking the “deliver” operation for a Reliable >> Message. This action marks the end of the RMP processing for this >> message. >> >> “ >> >> to >> >> “ >> >> Message Delivery: >> >> The action of invoking the “deliver” operation for a Reliable Message. >> >> “ > > > Actually, this does not cover the problems Chris identified with > failed Deliver operations nor the explicit connection we have made > between message delivery and sending an acknowledgement (when > required). I suggest: > > "Message Delivery: > > Completion of the Deliver operation for a Reliable Message." > >> Comment 9: Use of the word implement with Abstract operation >> >> Proposed clarification: >> >> Lines 256-257: change >> >> “ >> >> An RMP acting in the role of a Sending RMP MUST implement Submit, and >> notification of failure (Notify). An RMP acting in the role of a >> Receiving RMP MUST implement Deliver. >> >> “ >> >> with >> >> “ >> >> An RMP acting in the role of a Sending RMP MUST support use of Submit >> and Notify. An RMP acting in the role of a Receiving RMP MUST support >> use of Deliver. >> >> “ > > > An important part of the issue here was implications around who > implements what. The phrase "support use" is not dissimilar enough to > avoid these implications. I am also unsure why we are bothering with > the "acting in the role of" wordiness. Finally, I see nothing in the > specification requiring a sending RMP to use AckRequested, meaning > that Notify should also be optional (for a more extreme reason, > admittedly, than Respond is optional). I suggest: > > "A Sending RMP MUST support the Submit operation. A Receiving RMP > MUST invoke the Deliver operation for every valid, in-order and > non-expired message it receives." > > ... > > thanx, > doug > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]