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

Yes I confirm that I totally agree with the approach you proposed in the
specification.

I don't need to comment more because I had nothing better to offer.

Thanks for all your work

David

2010/10/5 Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>

>  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
>
>