W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > June 2005

Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction)

From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:27:45 +0200
Message-ID: <42A48791.2010504@coastin.com>
To: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
CC: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Comments below

Savas Parastatidis wrote:

><snip />
>
>  
>
>>>If we did this change, the relibility specs might utilize ws
>>>      
>>>
>addressing
>  
>
>>>message Id when present in a message.
>>>      
>>>
>>And they wouldn't if we didn't?  Why?
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
I guess I should clarify that I am thinking of an evolution of 
reliability specs being able to use the ws addressing message Id.

What Savas suggests would not work for reliability
, if each message had a unique uri for message Id, the the reliability 
specs would have to use
their own {globalSequenceID, SequenceNumber} pair.  WS RM currently has 
its own sequenceId, Sequence number pair put on
each message, regardless of what messageID exits for ws addressing.

Several people have suggested that generating a global uri for each 
message may have scalablity problems.

Perhaps I am mistaken, in trying to make wsa:messageID usefule for 
reliabiltity specs.

Tom Rutt

>Further to Rich's question...
>
>What if another spec has a similar but not identical requirement? Shall
>the WS-Addressing spec be changed to accommodate that requirement?
>
>Why couldn't the reliability spec say something like "we use the message
>identity from WS-Addressing and we introduce this additional SOAP header
>to capture the index"? Much cleaner approach me thinks.
>
>Best regards,
>.savas.
>
>  
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 17:29:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:05 GMT