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 19:30:55 +0200
Message-ID: <42A4884F.60505@coastin.com>
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

comments inline

Rich Salz wrote:

>> This scheme allows more scalable implementations (e.g, get uri at 
>> bootup, use system time when message composed cast as unsigned long 
>> for the integer portion of the message Id.
> Isn't this an implementation detail?  There are other mechanisms that 
> are similarly efficient and opaque (e.g., uuid's)
>> 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?

Reliability needs an id for a sequence of messages, and a sequence 
number for each message within that sequence.

both ws-reliability and ws-reliable messaging have their own elements in 
their headers for this purpose.  The could not
change to use ws-addressing message id unless it had  both a uri and an 
integer as the messageID.

Perhaps it is not bad to have reliability use its own message ID, for 
orthongonality purposes.  I am just investigating an approach
which would allow reuse of the message ID for addressing for reliability.

Tom Rutt

>     /r$

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 17:33:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:09 UTC