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
