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

RE: Reliable messaging

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:53:24 -0700
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1162@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
To: "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
I agree, but isn't this getting a bit solution specific ;)
 
David

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 2:11 PM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: Burdett, David; Mark Baker; 'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)';
www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Reliable messaging



Specifically, sender can tell the recipient to ignore it should it arrive. 

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

"Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> wrote on 08/29/2002
04:53:05 PM:

> One way you might be able to determine that a message was NOT received,
would be to send a query 
> to the destination that should have receieved the message to ask if they
had received it. 
>   
> However you still have the problem that the destination might still
receive the message after they
> have sent a response to your query indicating that they had not. In this
case, what should the 
> behavior of the destination be? 
>   
> David 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:29 PM
> To: 'Christopher B Ferris'; Mark Baker
> Cc: Burdett, David; www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Reliable messaging

> 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 18:53:22 GMT

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