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 19:07:18 -0400
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF831FF1B.A8E2F33F-ON85256C24.007E2992-85256C24.007EEC09@rchland.ibm.com>
Sure, but I was just responding to your question:)

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 06:53:24 PM:

> 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 19:07:56 GMT

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