W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > August 2002

RE: Reliable Messaging: Division of Responsibilities (was RE: RES T, Conversations and Reliability)

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:52:58 -0700
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E2EAE80@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "'Dave Hollander'" <dmh@contivo.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Is it possible that we could also contribute to defining what "reliable
messaging" means and what one can expect from it, possibly correlated
somehow with these layers?  I say this because I am convinced that the ebXML
reliable messaging spec is flawed by seeming to offer something that is
actually impossible and by not explicitly recognizing an exception scenario
that can occur under their spec. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hollander [mailto:dmh@contivo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 4:38 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Reliable Messaging: Division of Responsibilities (was RE: RES
T, Conversations and Reliability)



As a WG member...

>> *If* we assume that the view that applications must share *some* 
>> responsibility for reliability, then I think our task is to add as 
>> many semantics and formalized processes to access and manage these 
>> semantics.
>
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?  I don't understand.

Thanks for the support and I will try to be more specific. 

Assumptions:
1) basic layered architecture: transport, application
	(Pick what ever words work for you, these are the labels I
	am most comfortable with.)
2) intermediaries may be part of a layer or may represent their a
	new one---I am not debating that at this time.

3) an interesting and significant part of an architecture is to
	+ describe the roles and responsibilities for the layers
	+ describe how they interact

Proposed work items:

1) create strawman for layers (or equivalent)
2) place intermediaries in one (or more) locations in the arch
3) describe reliability as it relates the layers
4) identify roles and responsibilities relative to the layers. etc.

Clearly, there will be several models of what reliability is and how to
achieve it. SOAP, REST and all the other perspectives will need to be
considered. But at least when we are done it will be more constructive than
simply agreeing to disagree.

Dave H

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 12:16 PM
To: Dave Hollander
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Reliable Messaging: Division of Responsibilities (was RE: REST,
C onversations and Reliability)


Dave,

On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 10:51:08AM -0700, Dave Hollander wrote:
> The REST, Conversations and reliability thread has been informative. I 
> am splitting out what I believe to be one of the key design issues to 
> come from it in hopes of focusing and progressing to a useful 
> architecture document.

Good idea.

> *If* we assume that the view that applications must share *some* 
> responsibility for reliability, then I think our task is to add as 
> many semantics and formalized processes to access and manage these 
> semantics.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?  I don't understand.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 17:53:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:04 GMT