[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrm] Rel 44: Duplicate Elimination and Time To Live (TTL)
Scott I am totally supportive of the proposed fault/ack message flow. Call it a "control flow." It should be independent of the application/ data MEP and mandatory, in my opinion. That would mean that 1 way application MEF should support the 2 way fault/ack message flow I also am unsure if it needs to be described in WSDL, but it should use underlying SOAP and XML format alan ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Werden <scottw@wrq.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:25:37 -0700 To: "''Paolo.Romano@dis.uniroma1.it''" <Paolo.Romano@dis.uniroma1.it>, Sunil Kunisetty <sunil.kunisetty@oracle.com> Subject: RE: [wsrm] Rel 44: Duplicate Elimination and Time To Live (TTL) > Paolo- > > I agree with your description of the fault/ack message flow. I described the > same thing in my email I sent yesterday. The important thing is that WS-RM > may require an additional MEP, beyond the application level MEP defined in > the WSDL, for it to carry out its ACK or fault, but this would be completely > independent of, and would not affect, the application MEP. However, I am not > sure this WS-RM MEP needs to ever be defined in the WSDL. > > Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paolo Romano [mailto:Paolo.Romano@dis.uniroma1.it] > > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:02 AM > > To: Sunil Kunisetty; Paolo.Romano@dis.uniroma1.it > > Cc: wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: Re: [wsrm] Rel 44: Duplicate Elimination and Time To > > Live (TTL) > > > > > > > > > > > > How does "using the Headers" solution solve the above > > case? If we have > > > to send the Fault in Headers (as HeaderFault), that will > > still result in > > > sending a SOAP response and the MEP gets altered. > > > > > > So I fail to understand how the above unresolved case is solved? > > > > > > -Sunil > > > > > > > > > I might be wrong, but my idea is the following: Let's > > consider the case when an > > existing application has defined a one way MEP in its WSDL. > > If the application > > layers itself upon WS-RM, the whole WSDL (ws-rm > > header+app.dependant) should > > still be one-way. If a fault has to be sent back to the ws-rm > > sender processor, > > this is still possible because the latter has defined a WSDL > > one-way operation > > for receiving the ack. This message globally alters the MEP > > and I suppose this > > is what you do not like of this approach. > > Anyway this is a WS-RM level message, not an application > > level message. > > Therefore, it does not alter the application defined MEP, > > which is one-way. In > > fact, if the WS-RM receiving processor sends back a fault, > > then the message is > > not delivered to the application, and the application one-way > > MEP just does not > > take place. > > > > In other words, the application defined MEP simply does not > > take place, because > > the message is stopped at the ws-rm receiver. There is no > > problem with sending > > back a fault message, because we have defined a ws-rm wsdl > > one-way operation to > > receive acks and faullts. So we have a one-way only from the > > ws-rm sender to the > > ws-receiver, followed by an asynch response always at the same layer. > > > > I do not know if I have been clear, I think my idea could be > > better explained > > with some pictures but I am overwhelmed with work at the moment... > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Paolo > > > > > > -- > > Paolo Romano > > > > > > > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.ph > p > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php > Alan Weissberger 2013 Acacia Ct Santa Clara, CA 95050-3482 1 408 863 6042 voice 1 408 863 6099 fax
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]