RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060 ammendment to current proposal

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

Its interesting - I was waiting for
someone to mentioned something like this - mainly because it seemed like
the entire interaction between the RMD and the AD (the DA food-fight) was
about to come up again - but this time between the AS and the RMS  :-)
Part of me wonders if we should just
be talking about RMS and RMD and not AS/AD at all.
-Doug

"Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>

12/08/2005 01:20 PM

To	"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, "Jacques Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>, "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060 ammendment to current proposal

I hate to be a fly on the ointment,
but the very notion of “delivered” in order infers that every service
which adheres to this protocol must have a specific architecture whereby
a service passes incoming messages to another application and/or the message
sent come from another application other than the RMS, presumably that
either is on a different network node.  Is it not possible that what
we really mean is [ handled || processed || acted upon ] in the order intended
by the message source” or perhaps even the more vague 
 
“that the reliable message
destination can re-create the message stream exactly (inferring the sequence
tokens are present) as it was when it left the message sender, spanning
multiple messages in one exchange”?
 
Honestly, if we are creating
a specification that will withstand the scrutiny of our peers and the tests
of time, we may wish to be a bit more precise WRT the wording of this.
 The patterns of AS, RMS, RMD, AD is valid in a lot of cases, but
should not be mandatory in all cases.
 
Sorry to sound like a broken
record.
 
Duane
 
 
 
 
 
*******************************
Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT  http://www.uncefact.org/
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee
Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
*******************************

---

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:16 PM
To: Jacques Durand; Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060 ammendment to current proposal
 
Yeah. What he said . . . .
 
- g

---

From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 5:00 PM
To: Gilbert Pilz; Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060 ammendment to current proposal
Adding to the wordsmithing,
I think the numbering must be scoped by the sequence, yet without the AS
knowing it.
it might help to clearly separate
these two requirements:
(1) numbers for a sequence
must be assigned by RMS in an incremental way (by increment of 1) over
time, 
(2) the numbering must reflect
the sending order from AS. (I anticipate here on my most recent "new
issue" which I expect will not be controversial)
 
How about the Invariant: 
The RM Source MUST assign
message numbers (defined below) to each message to be delivered reliably
beginning at 1 for a new sequence and increasing by exactly 1 for the next
assignment within the sequence. Within a sequence, these numbers MUST be
assigned in the same order in which messages are sent by the Application
Source.
 
Other parts of my amendment
(L78, L168, L454) are intended to align with removal of "reliable
message" and usage of "reliable delivery" instead.
 
Jacques

---

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 1:19 PM
To: Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060 ammendment to current proposal
 
This seems to be both redundant
and potentially confusing. At this point in the document we are referring
to "the protocol" in an abstract sense. The introductory sentence
states "During the lifetime of the
protocol . . ". A Sequence is a lower level construct for managing
the lifetime of "the protocol". The AS and AD need not (and possibly
"should not") have any knowledge of the Sequence.
 
- g

---

From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 12:52 PM
To: Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 060 ammendment to current proposal
 
On a side note, I think the Sequence
scoping of the message numbers should be clear from this invariant.
 
How about:
Replace "For
each message that is to be delivered reliably ..."
with
"In a Sequence, for each message that is to be delivered reliably
..."
 
Thanks,
Sanjay

---

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, Dec 07, 2005 12:39 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] Issue 060 ammendment to current proposal
The motion currently on the table is to change
first invariant under section 2.3 to:
 
The RM Source MUST assign
each message to be delivered reliably a message number (defined below)
beginning at 1 and increasing by exactly 1 for each subsequent message
to be delivered reliably.
 
In http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200511/msg00152.html
Chris made the following suggestion for the same text.
 
The RM Source MUST assign
each reliable message in the Sequence a message number (defined below)
beginning at 1 for the first message sent by the Application Source and
increasing by exactly 1 for each subsequent reliable message sent by the
Application Source.
 
The intent is to tighten up the contract
between the AS and RMS with regards to message numbering.
 
I would like to combine the two proposals
into the following:
 
For each message that
is to be delivered reliably, the RM Source MUST assign a message number
(defined below) beginning at 1 for the first message sent by the Application
Source and increasing by exactly 1 for each subsequent message sent by
the Application Source.
 
- g