[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [wsrm] Proposed clarificaiton resolutions to Ferriscomments 1,2
Jacques, Please see below On 15-Jul-04 17:15, Jacques Durand wrote: ... > Deliver: > > An abstract operation that transfers the payload of one Reliable Message > from Receiving RMP to Consumer. For example, in one specific > implementation choice, the payload is placed into a queue by the Receiving > RMP to be consumed by an application component. > > <JD> So you propose to not use anymore the expression "making available". > In that case we should warn that the notion of "transfer" above must also > be understood in an abstract way, as a transfer of control (or of > responsibility) on the payload, > not necessarily as a physical transfer which may take place later > (in which case we may not want to wait for this to happen before sending > the Ack). > E.g. an RMP may "deliver" by just setting a flag on > payload stored in a persistent store, meaning availability to a COnsumer > which > may later complete the actual transfer by querying the store. > </JD> Whether payloads or control of payloads is transfered is a very low implementation detail that does not matter when we are talking about abstract operations on abstract components. I believe this only confuses the specification. > Notify: > > An abstract operation that transfers a failure status or contained payload > of one Reliable Message from Sending RMP to Producer. The transfered > status might include an indication the Sending RMP was unable to reliably > deliver the message. The Sending RMP is NOT REQUIRED to invoke this > operation for every Reliable Message submitted; it MAY invoke Notify for a > subset of the completed Submit operations. > > <JD> the last sentence ("it MAY...") is not clear, and talks of > correlation between > these ops that I believe should be addressed later in the doc in a more > informed context, > e.g. section 2.2. > Also we may want to move the requirements > (statements using the RFC keywords) out of these definitions, and in a > more prescriptive section > like 2.2. The prescriptive section (2.2) should also say the most basic: > that an RMP MUST > be able to invoke Notify (regardless how the op is implemented) as well > as Deliver. > The other operations (Submit, Respond) are to be invoked from outside.</JD> Moving these sentences elsewhere is fine. I am not sure what is missing (or where) with regard to your last sentence. ... > Respond: > > An abstract operation that transfers the payload of one Response Message > from Consumer to Receiving RMP. When supported in the protocol, this > payload data will be carried together with RM Reply headers (see below). > The Consumer is NOT REQUIRED to invoke this operation for every Reliable > Message delivered; it MAY invoke Respond for a subset of the completed > Deliver operations. > " > <JD> same remarks as for Notify. Also the 2nd sentence seems not at its > place in this > a definition, whch I believe does not need to mention all the rules > associated with these ops. > I propose to keep just the 1st sentence, in the def.</JD> In another email, you agreed with the general use of forward references from this section. The second sentence above is a forward reference to the rules you mention, not those rules. > thanx, > doug ..
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]