Next in thread →
Next in month →
RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
Marc, First, I'm glad that I think we're all in agreement that a polling solution is the right solution for these issues - I think that alone is progress. So, as you say, the question then becomes a matter of placement of function. Up to now I think most people have chosen to ignore this issue. Yes some groups (like WS-BaseNotification or WS-Management) saw the issue and defined their own domain specific solutions, but they are just that - domain specific. As you say in your note, a more foundational architectural solution is a better approach. So, is RM one of those specs? RM clearly isn't domain specific and it deals with transfer of messages between endpoint - so far so good. As I've said several times, I don't think its a stretch to think of reliability as more than just resend until acked. Right now RM already deals with reaching unreachable endpoints - but we've been thinking of it limiting itself to 'unreachable' meaning temporarily down - or poor networks connections. I really don't think its hard to see anon endpoints as being part of that grouping - there really isn't much of a difference. In all cases the other side isn't guaranteed to be there - the only thing that's special about this case is how the connection between the two endpoints is established - beyond that everything else is the same (at least for our proposal - Paul's doesn't keep everything else the same but that's a different note :-). Perhaps I didn't say it correctly, but its not that I think its RM's job to get the anon/sync world to look as much like the async world - what I meant to say is that we wanted our polling solution to allow them to look the same to the code that makes use of it. thanks, -Doug "Marc Goodner" <> 04/28/2006 04:32 AM To Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <> cc Subject RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal I’m certainly against banning anon. Why is it the mandate of RM to “get the anon/sync world to look as much like the async world as possible”? Your proposal makes it clear that is what your goal is, but that is also foremost in my mind why it has nothing to do with RM. That statement clearly scopes the problem you are trying to solve as a foundational architectural concern below the level of RM. Marc Goodner Technical Diplomat Microsoft Corporation Tel: (425) 703-1903 Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ From: Doug Davis [mailto:] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:28 AM To: Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal I think this scenario is required for RM. At the last f2f we talked about how an RMS may need to create new sequences for a variety of reasons - one of which was because people wanted to be able to create a new sequence based on the soap version, but there are lots of other reasons people may need to create 'em. IMO, the use of the anon EPR should not impact these types of decisions - remember we're trying to get the anon/sync world to look as much like the async world as possible. If we allowed anon EPRs to impact our RM processing/decision-making model then we would need to explore banning the use of anon, which I believe is something your against. -Doug "Marc Goodner" <> 04/28/2006 04:14 AM To Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <> cc Subject RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal Doug, is that scenario required for RM or polling in general? As soon as you start talking about a server side RMS establishing a sequence to an un-addressable client I think you are beyond RM. You can’t establish inbound communications from a server to an un-addressable client without RM so why is this an RM problem? If we are looking to add a tightly scoped polling mechanism to RM for specific scenarios this one would not be high on my list. Marc Goodner Technical Diplomat Microsoft Corporation Tel: (425) 703-1903 Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ From: Doug Davis [mailto:] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:05 AM To: Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal I do believe that the scenario you're talking about is a required one but I would phrase it a bit differently. An RMS (whether its the client-side RMS or the server-side RMS) needs to be able to follow the same RM processing model. And part of the processing model is the ability to decide "if", "when" and "how" to use RM. As we talk about in the Q&A section of our proposal, an RMS having the option of choosing to decide which RM sequence to use, when to create new ones, or even when to use RM at all are all part of the RM processing model and those aspects need to be maintained even in these anon cases. In your proposal you put the burden on the RMD to make a lot decisions on behalf of the RMS, that's quite a change to the RM processing model and I have no idea how the RMD could ever know all it would need to know to make those decisions. For example, how would it know when a new sequence is needed by the RMS? That is why I believe our proposal is a better fit for RM - it allows the RMS to retain all of the same logic and choices that it has in the async world. Our proposal simply re-establishes the backchannel that the RMS (on the server side) is looking for - nothing more. Once that is there, it is then back to "standard operating procedures" - the RMS can do whatever it would normally do. thanks, -Doug Paul Fremantle <> 04/27/2006 05:51 PM To Marc Goodner <> cc wsrx <> Subject Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal If the TC isn't attached to this scenario then this section can be deleted. The scenario is simply when you want to send unreliably but receive reliable responses. I've heard this stated as a requirement in some scenarios, but WSO2 doesn't have any pressing scenarios of this ilk so we would be happy either way. Paul Marc Goodner wrote: > So is an RMS engaged at the client side or not? This is weird, why would > the infrastructure on the client side decide to do this? > > Marc Goodner > Technical Diplomat > Microsoft Corporation > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:] > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:57 PM > To: Marc Goodner > Cc: wsrx > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal > > Marc > > This is the case where the client is making an offer but not creating an > > outbound sequence - thats all. A client offers a sequence, and then > reliably gets messages from the server that are buffered under that > sequenceID. > > Paul > > Marc Goodner wrote: > >> I still don't understand why offered sequence is being used in the >> explanation. If this is going to usually be used with an offered >> sequence I'd like to understand how, that isn't explained in my mind. >> > If > >> it is applicable for any sequence, offered or not, I'd like to >> understand that as well. The current text only confuses me in its use >> > of > >> the term and I'm afraid your explanation below isn't helping me get >> > past > >> it. Perhaps comparing the two modes would be a better approach. >> >> On 4.2, "Offer a sequence without the overhead of requesting one"? I >> don't understand. The text refers to the RMD requesting a sequence >> > from > >> the RMS, but it sounds like this is an unreliable request so doesn't >> that mean there is no RMS at the client? Isn't this about the service >> acting as an RMS and the client acting as an RMD? So the pattern would >> be client sends one way message to service (GetMessage?), response is >> Offer, then client sends a response to the response of Accept? What >> > does > >> the service return to that? Why wouldn't the service send a CS in the >> body of the GetMessage response to the client? >> >> Marc Goodner >> Technical Diplomat >> Microsoft Corporation >> Tel: (425) 703-1903 >> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:] >> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:11 AM >> To: Marc Goodner >> Cc: wsrx >> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal >> >> Marc >> >> I use the words "Offered Sequence" informatively and non-normatively. >> This is most likely to be used with an offered sequence, but isn't >> > tied > >> to that. >> >> As regards 4.2, this is there to satisfy the scenario where you only >> want reliable responses. I added this in for discussion because I know >> > > >> that some members find this an important scenario. In that case you >> > need > >> to be able to Offer a sequence without the overhead of requesting one. >> > > >> It is related to the anonymous client because without a real endpoint >> the server cannot send a CS to the client so it relies on an offer. >> >> Paul >> >> Marc Goodner wrote: >> >> >>> Given 1 and 2, yes some text that clarified that not only is this >>> specific to RM but that a general solution would be preferable would >>> >>> >> be >> >> >>> best. >>> >>> On 3 I suppose, I don't like seeing WS-A headers in the body of a >>> message though. Do you really even need the response for a specific >>> message? Why not return any responses or messages for that sequence >>> >>> >> that >> >> >>> have not been acknowledged? And what are you talking about when you >>> >>> >> say >> >> >>> this is tied to the offered sequence? What offered sequence? I don't >>> >>> >> see >> >> >>> anything here that ties the use of your GetMessage proposal to an >>> offered sequence. >>> >>> I don't understand section 4.2 in your proposal at all. What does >>> > this > >>> have to do with the rest of this proposal? >>> >>> Marc Goodner >>> Technical Diplomat >>> Microsoft Corporation >>> Tel: (425) 703-1903 >>> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:57 AM >>> To: Marc Goodner >>> Cc: wsrx >>> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal >>> >>> Marc >>> >>> 1) Yes - I completely aimed this to be a specific model for RM. I >>> >>> >> would >> >> >>> be happy to include language that indicates that if a more general >>> purpose firewall crossing mechanism was in place this should not be >>> used. >>> 2) The wsrm:Identifier is a required part of my proposal, and >>> >>> >> therefore >> >> >>> this proposal is completely tied to the use of RM. >>> 3) The suggestion of using messageNumber is interesting. The >>> >>> >> motivation >> >> >>> for using a message ID was that there may be situations where I >>> > really > >>> >>> >> >> >>> want the response to a given message. We do not - so far - have any >>> concept of a response to a given RM messageID, so that seemed like a >>> >>> >> new >> >> >>> concept to me, whereas WS-A systems do keep track of responses to >>> >>> >> given >> >> >>> messageIDs. But I'm not averse to your suggestion. However I wish to >>> make clear that in my proposal you MUST have both the Identifier and >>> >>> >> the >> >> >>> messageID - so it is still very closely tied to the offered sequence. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> Marc Goodner wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I hope that this is scoped to RM and not a general purpose polling >>>> mechanism. I assume that is your intent in that you use the >>>> wsrm:Identifier and indicate that you see this being part of the >>>> > core > >>>> spec. Still it seems like including language that indicates that >>>> >>>> >> would >> >> >>>> be advised, particularly noting that if there were a general purpose >>>> polling mechanism that it might be preferred over this one. >>>> >>>> So following from that why is MessageID in the GetMessage? Isn't the >>>> identifier enough? If it isn't wouldn't the addition of >>>> wsrm:MessageNumber do the trick? >>>> >>>> Marc Goodner >>>> Technical Diplomat >>>> Microsoft Corporation >>>> Tel: (425) 703-1903 >>>> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:] >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:40 PM >>>> To: wsrx >>>> Subject: [ws-rx] i089 proposal >>>> >>>> Folks >>>> >>>> At the F2F I took away an action to come up with a proposal for i089 >>>> > > >>>> before the call. I'm sorry its so close to the call. >>>> >>>> I've attached a proposal for review. This is a work in progress, but >>>> >>>> >> I >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> think it helps call out some of the issues involved around i089. >>>> >>>> I think the most important questions for the TC are: >>>> >>>> (1) How does a customer/user use WSRM in a two-way scenario if one >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> side >>> >>> >>> >>>> is anonymous? >>>> (2) Adding a "GetMessage" makes the protocol more symmetric, but >>>> > also > >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> might overlap with a wider non-reliable solution to this problem. Is >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> it >>> >>> >>> >>>> in the scope of this TC to add this? >>>> (3) In the case we do add it, what criteria do we use to select >>>> > which > >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> message to request. >>>> (4) Is this a generic solution (i.e. can the RMD request messages >>>> >>>> >> from >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> the RMS in all cases) or special cased to anonURI scenarios? >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
Next in thread →
Next in month →