W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > October 2006

Re: An Example Use of RM's MakeConnection

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:32:01 -0400
To: tom@coastin.com
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF864E9EF2.B79C1E47-ON85257203.00602C70-85257203.00604FBF@us.ibm.com>
  I'm not talking about the failure case - look at the message flow that 
started this thread.

Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> 
10/10/2006 01:26 PM
Please respond to

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Re: An Example Use of RM's MakeConnection

Doug Davis wrote:
> Also, let's not forget that WSA's definition is pretty clear that anon 
> means the _current_ backchannel.  RM's anon URI allows for the 
> messages to flow over a subsequent backchannel - this is a change to 
> the semantics of Anon.  Doesn't seem like having a ref-p or some 
> wsa:RelatesTo change those semantics is kosher.
Lets assume that wsrm is not in use.  If the backchannel for a request 
is not available (due to tcp faulure perhaps) the http response will not 

The user will be made aware of the underlying transport fault, but it 
cannot get the response using normal ws addressing.

But wsrm has an additional mechanism, to allow unsent responses, from 
specific identified backchannels ("this is me again") using the 
makeConnection message.

If we view what we are doing in this way, the make connection stuff can 
be made part of the behaviour of the wsrm implementation
 (e.g, retaining queues for each idenfitied back channel, rather than 
the ws addressing implementation, directly.

After all, WS Reliable messaging protocol is outside the scope of the ws 
addressing prescribed behavious (e.g, reply message header requirements).


Tom Rutt                 email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 17:32:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:14 UTC