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

Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages?

From: Conor P. Cahill <concahill@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:37:39 -0400
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>
cc: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, tom@coastin.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <42B180A3.1030907@aol.com>



Mark Little wrote on 6/16/2005, 9:13 AM:

 >
 > I didn't mean to imply you'd said sessions explicitly and thought the
 > rest of my message made that clear. It's just that the term correlation
 > id is often used when talking about sessions. If you're just talking
 > about simply tying together a request and a response (with subsequent
 > requests having different "ids") then I reiterate that I don't have a
 > problem with MessageID, or (going back to the mid 80's when RPCs were
 > the king) SequenceNumber. I think shifting to CorrelationID runs the
 > risk of increasing the confusion you mention.

So, to summarize, I'm saying that MessageID has proven to be *extremely*
confusing to everybody, incuding most of the people in this group.  You
are saying that choosing the name CorrelationID may also have some level
of confusing.

So, how about using RequestID.

Conor
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 13:38:07 GMT

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