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

RE: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:06:49 -0500
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org, Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>, "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Message-ID: <OFCFD813C8.2CA1341E-ON85256FB9.00625E2A-85256FB9.0063809E@us.ibm.com>

All time is relative. Ask Einstein. If my frame of reference is different 
than yours (and it always is; see Einstein)
then a duration can often make the most sense for something like a retry 
interval. If I tell you to retry on
March 15, 2005 and your system's clock is mistakenly set to the epoch, 
then you'll be waiting an awfully
long time to retry. Conversely, if I tell you to retry at 2 pm ET today 
and your clock is mistakenly set to 
tomorrow sometime, you'll either be retrying too soon or never at all.

A retry is just a convenience that says,"wait some period and try again... 
I might be up by then". If I tell you
to wait 30 minutes and it takes an hour to get there, where is the harm if 
you wait an additional 30 minutes?
For all I know, you have been retrying repeatedly in the interim because 
you didn't get the retry fault
and didn't know better to wait. Or, maybe you're using WS-RM with the 
exponential backoff enabled
and you're possibly going to ignore the retry fault and stick with that.

Wimpy: "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"

We all know that Wimpy never paid.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
phone: +1 508 377 9295

public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 03/03/2005 12:07:50 PM:

> 
> >   xs:dateTime is an instant in time, not a period of time
> 
> Ask me Tuesday.
> 
> >   xs:duration is a period of time, not an instant in time
> 
> Ask me in three days (implied: from now).
> 
> >  This proposal would make us look stupid to the entire community
> 
> I hardly think so.  A duration only makes sense when you have a base
> time to use it with.  What's the base time here?  Is it when the server
> sent the message, or the receiver got it?  And suppose it's not 
HTTP-HTTP
> but HTTP-SMTP?
> 
>         /r$
> 
> -- 
> Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
> DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
> XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2005 21:26:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:04 GMT