What might be a clarification is that the ack should be able to be
included on a reliable message being sent in the reverse direction to an
original request message.
Thus, while WSDL would be "one way" messages, one could have them flow
in two directions with a piggyback of acks with messages.
Tom Rutt
Fujitsu
iwasa wrote:
> Magdolna,
>
> Right. Strictly speaking, RPC might not be appropriate terminology.
> I meant the synchronous request/response message
> exchange pattern, when I said RPC in the former e-mail.
>
> Iwasa
>
> --
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm a bit confused about the terminology used: "synchronous RPC". Do you
> mean here synchronous request/response message exchange pattern, allowing
> much more general message data structure ? In my understanding RPC (Remote
> Procedure Call) describes a special one.
>
> br,
> Magdolna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext iwasa [mailto:]
> Sent: April 08,2003 6:38
> To: wsrm-TC
> Subject: Re: [wsrm] Draft Agenda for Tuesday April 8 WSRM TC meeting
> Teleconference]
>
>
> All,
>
> I would like to raise one discussion item for charter.
> Currently, out of scope items include "Synchronous RPC
> at the application level", but it would require a clarification.
>
> This was originally included here to simplify the spec,
> since including both RM and RPC sometimes
> make the spec confusing.
>
> However it was not intended to prohibit to use the spec
> for synchronous RPC at application level. So it means
> we could include how to use the spec for RPC. And the
> spec shouldn't prohibit to do so.
>
> Thus, I would like to propose making a clarification
> for the sentence with one of the following options:
>
> 1.Adding a clarification like:
> Synchronous RPC at the application level.
> *Note this is included here to simplify the spec,
> since including both RM and RPC sometimes
> make the spec confusing. This doesn't mean the spec
> should not be used for synchronous RPC at application
> level, but the spec must allow to do so. In addition to this,
> the spec may have normative description how the
> spec is used for "Synchronous RPC at the application
> level", if appropriate.
>
> 2. Removing the sentence to avoid miss-understanding.
>
> And I would propose #2 option above.
> Thanks,
>
> Iwasa
>
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt email: ;
Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
