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

Re: Message ID vs. context

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:15:13 -0800
Message-ID: <42390451.5000802@oracle.com>
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
CC: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org

Isn't that what Ref Parameters allow you to do?


David Hull wrote:
> The discussion of message correlation I've seen so far deals with 
> correlating one message directly with another, in particular a reply 
> with its request.  There is another well-known approach, however, namely 
> correlating messages with some "context" entity.  In the case of simple 
> message correlation, the initiating message itself serves as a context 
> marker, but it's also possible for an initial operation to create or 
> obtain a context ID and for subsequent messages to reference it.  This 
> is common practice in many real-world systems, and there are standards 
> in my mammoth "to read" pile (e.g., WS-Context) that aim to address this.
> The immediate question is, is there any need or desire to broaden the 
> concept of Message ID to something like "Context ID" or "Correlation 
> ID", or is it OK just to treat context as a separate issue?  I'm leaning 
> towards the latter.  For example, a given request/reply may exist within 
> the context of some larger conversation.  Basic message correlation ties 
> the reply to the request, and some other ID ties the whole operation to 
> the larger conversation.  But on the other hand maybe all this is saying 
> is that the same message can belong to multiple contexts at once.
>  From a WSA point of view, it's seems OK to stick with message 
> correlation.  Establishing a context and then referencing it in two 
> messages just to handle something simple like request/reply sounds like 
> serious overkill.
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2005 04:32:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:42 UTC