Duane,
+1
Abbie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:38 PM
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Is an implementation
> supporting a smaller max message number valid? [Re: [ws-rx]
> NEW ISSUE: Max message number in policy]
>
>
> Abbie:
>
> I see 3 relatively minor sub-issues:
>
> 1. When profiles, interop tests are written, the authors of those
> probably need to acknowledge that there should be no
> requirement for an
> implementer to be forced to handle the currently largest
> maximum number,
> since none of us would.
> 2. What is a realistic number that *should* be supported to meet
> conformance/compliance requirements or interop scenarios? I
> presume a
> rollover test should be in the interop tests.
> 3. If a specific implementation handles less than the unsigned or
> signed long, how to they declare such or do they simply forward a
> rollover? I think you and I are agreeing that there needs to be a
> declaration capability.
>
> Duane
>
>
> Abbie Barbir wrote:
>
> >I really do not see the problem here.
> >
> >the size of long allows 9 quintillion, that is fine, agree
> with Chris,
> >most of us will die before the number is exahusted in a session.
> >
> >However, an RM can choke on other factors, such as avilable buffers
> >etc. as opposed to the size limits.
> >
> >At the end of the day, it should be able to state its limitations.
> >
> >Abbie
> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
