Re: [wsrm] message headers for Ack and Fault ??

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Jacques Durand wrote:

> Could someone remind me why we need an RM:MessageHeader element for 
> Ack and Fault messages?
> I could not justify this to our implementor Hamid.
> Such headers could not possibly have a meaning for these signals, as
> they would have to fully relate to a business response that we want to 
> be reliable, in case
> of request-response pattern, or more generally in case these signals 
> piggy-back on business messages.
>
> Jacques
>
>
If we do not have a business reason to give the response its own 
identity for WS-relibability protocol, then
we should do that.

I do not see any requirement in our Requirements document which warrants 
the Message header for a reply which
is not itself a reliable message.

In fact, this would clarify that a reliable message is one which has a 
rm:messageHeader.

The response is not a reliable mesage, unless it is using piggybacking.

Lets open a new issue on this one.

Tom Rutt
WSRM Chair

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133