Re: Please don't rely on JMSMessageID for Protocol 2038.

 HI David,

I'm following up on a loose thread.  You submitted a comment to the
SOAP/JMS working group [1].

In preparing a "disposition of comments" document in preparation for
eventually completing the standard. Along the way, I noticed that we got
a response from you that looked like you agreed with our approach [3],
but it doesn't look like we ever got back to you to confirm that you
specifically like the end result, a change to Protocol-2038 [2].

So that I can record this properly for posterity, can you confirm that
the changed text meets your expectations?

Thanks!

-Eric.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Jun/0015.html
[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Protocol-2038
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Jun/0023.html


On 06/20/2010 12:28 PM, David Naramski wrote:
> which I thank you, I understand that we agree that amending the
> Protocol 2038 is the best solution. Because : 
>
> 1) It works entirely without  WS-A. 
> 2) It only relies on the JMS core mechanisms (JMSMessageId and
> JMSCorrelationID).
> 3) This is a minimal change to the current specification that does not
> change the default behaviour. 
>
> The original rule : 
>
>     S MUST copy the JMSMessageID from the original
>     request to the JMSCorrelationID of the response
>
> Becomes :
>
>     if there is no JMSCorrelationId set in the request, 
>         S MUST copy the JMSMessageID from the original 
>         request to the JMSCorrelationID of the response.
>     else 
>         S MUST copy the JMSCorrelationID from original 
>         request to the JMSCorrelationID