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

RE: Reliable messaging

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:55:21 -0400
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF5D8E4CC.6ECAFB45-ON85256C24.0071C534-85256C24.0072D783@rchland.ibm.com>
Specifically, you can ask the receiver. ebXML defined a status message and 
response that
could be used to determine the outcome of a given message.

Of course, there are always failure modes that leave the sender indoubt as 
to the disposition
(e.g. the receiver is unresponsive) If prolonged, it can leave the sender 
in an indoubt state
longer than it is willing to remain so at which time the human responsible 
for the sender picks
up the phone:)

The whole point is to minimize the probability that the sender will remain 
in such a state.

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

"Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com> wrote on 
08/29/2002 04:29:00 PM:

> I know of mechanisms that, if successful, will assure the sender that 
the message HAS been 
> received.  I do not know of any mechanism that will allow the sender to 
know that the message has 
> NOT been received.  The ebXML spec most certainly does not.  So I 
believe that the word "whether" 
> below is inappropriate.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:25 PM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: Burdett, David; www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Reliable messaging

> 
> #1 in my definition reads: 
> 
> the ability of a sender to be able to determine whether a given 
> message has been received by its intended receiver ... 
> 
> It doesn't speak of a mechanism, but there are many means of achieving 
this. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Christopher Ferris
> Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> phone: +1 508 234 3624 
> 
> www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 08/29/2002 04:01:41 PM:
> 
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:48:41AM -0700, Burdett, David wrote:
> > > I like your definitions,  however, they do not address what I think 
is the
> > > certainty that although you can be sure a message was received, you 
can
> > > never be absolutely sure that it was not.
> > 
> > How can you be sure that a message was received?  Because there's 
always
> > a chance that the response to a message doesn't make it, and leaves 
the
> > two parties out of synch (i.e. two army problem).
> > 
> > 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, 29 August 2002 16:56:31 GMT

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