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: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:49:48 +0100
Message-ID: <42B1837C.3060609@arjuna.com>
To: "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.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



Conor P. Cahill wrote:

>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.
>  
>
Yes, that's a fair summary.

>So, how about using RequestID.
>  
>
I think it more closely maps to the requirements, particularly since you 
can't have a MessageID/RequestID without a ReplyTo. However, what are 
the semantics if you have a RequestID and no ReplyTo? Doesn't the syntax 
of RequestID imply a response is also required and hence the name might 
still be confusing? (Just playing Devil's Advocate.)

Mark.

>Conor
>
>
>  
>
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 13:49:35 GMT

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