Jacques et al:
Comments inline...
Jacques Durand wrote:
> 2. I actually chime in with your idea of NOT requiring any maximum
> sequence number value in the spec.
>
> You say "...A conformant implementation in this case would be
>
> the one which obeys what it declares..." In what I proposed (previous
> mail), this "declaration" could be made dynamically, sent back in the
> CreateSequenceResponse. No need to have it in a policy or in the spec.
> Another reason for this: in some resource-strapped RM Destination
> implementations there may be a need to dynamically limit the length of
> new sequences. Let us not forget that the memory footprint of a
> sequence state is roughly proportional to its size (i.e. to the number
> of "holes" in it, or integer intevals). A Destination may have to
> choose between allocating a few long sequences, or many smaller ones.
>
DN - Dynamic scaling is a good policy since it would be very difficult
to create a static "I handle XXX messages" statement unless one errored
on the extreme side of conservatism. Any application could issue a
static declaration then become swamped if it gets 250 concurrent RX's
started.
IMO something similar to the dynamic memory allocation used by JVM's
might work. The real issue of resource reclamation is possibly worth
exploring too.
Duane
