That is something I could support.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rutt [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 4:52 PM
> To: Sunil Kunisetty
> Cc: Jacques Durand; ''
> Subject: Re: [wsrm] Rel YY
>
>
> Sunil Kunisetty wrote:
>
> >
> > Jacques,
> >
> > Oracle will be supporting this proposal. However, I prefer that
> > SequenceNumber
> > be Optional rather than mandatory as you indicated in (P2). I
> > understand that it will
> > be difficult for schema validation, but I believe it will be much
> > simpler and efficient
> > for implementations.
> >
> > So essentially we should categorize all RM into 3 different
> > categories based on
> > the elements used in RM Headers:
> >
> > 1) Grouped and Ordered Messages: Group Id + Seq No. +
> > Message Order
> >
>
> > Same Group Id, Different Seq No.
> >
> > 2) Grouped and Un-Ordered Messages: Group Id + Seq No.
> >
>
> > Same Group Id, Different Seq No.
> >
> > 3) Discrete & Independent RM Messages: Group Id
> >
> > We could then use the SequenceNumber sub-element has the toggle
> > switch to
> > distinguish Grouped Un-ordered with Discrete & Independent
> messages.
> >
> We could then use the presence of the SequenceNumber's status
> attribute
> (an enum with first, more, and last) as the trigger for
> ordered delivery
> of the sequenced group.
>
> Thus the sequence Number would be optional with an optional status
> attribute.
>
> This does not change our existing syntax, only the semantics.
>
>
> This way we would not need a separate rm-orderRequested
> header subelement.
>
> Tom Rutt
>
> > An
> > implementation could then use 3 different Hash Tables to store the
> > IDs, thus
> > making DE much more efficient.
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt email: ;
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leav
> e_workgroup.php.
>
>
