My feeling is that (a) is better. Though the protocol is named WSRM,
there is still chance that the message fail to delivered successfully.
In that case, application level retry mechanism might be employed.
Therefore, the application might receive the missing messages
eventually. In this case, the application can take less care about
message ordering if it will *not* see any messages not in order.
Comment?
Cheers, -Patrick
Scott Werden wrote:
>What is the behavior of a WSRM receiver that is ordering messages and one of
>the messages is never received, or at least not within the MET (timeout) of
>a subsequent message even though ACKing is being used?
>
>For example: it receives msg #0, #1, #3. The MET for message #3 is 5 minutes
>so the receiver cannot wait more that 5 minutes for #2 to arrive. What does
>it do when the 5 minutes expires?
>
>Options:
>(a) Send a fault back to the sender, notify the application, and abort all
>further ordering for the group.
>(b) Send a fault back, deliver #3 to the app just before it times out, and
>continuing ordering all subsequent messages.
>(c) Something else?
>
>
>Scott
>
>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
>
>
