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

Re: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was RE: Agenda for 5 December WSA telcon)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:27:57 -0500
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021205112757.T13658@www.markbaker.ca>

Hi Mike,

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:53:25AM -0500, Champion, Mike wrote:
> Can we just focus on "reliable messaging" (AFAIK, a guarantee that
> a SOAP message will arrive either 0 or 1 times at its destination,
> and the sender will be unambiguously informed which it was),

I believe our most recent discussion on this topic was here;


You have to be really careful how you phrase the problem.  It is
impossible, without additional constraints, to solve the two army
problem, which your wording above appears to describe.

I think DavidB said it best here;


> or
> is the larger architectural question of "reliability" something 
> we can dig into?

I think it definitely is worth it, though past attempts on my part to
bring it up have always been shot down because many people just take it
as given that "reliability" == "reliable messaging".  I think that works
on LANs, but not on the Internet.  On the Internet, "reliability" ==
"reliable coordination".  That's not just good theory, it's been common
practice since the the Internet began.  Many attempts at a reliable
messaging system were made, and none saw much success.  Yet application
protocols (which are coordination protocols) all seemed to do just fine.
For example, IMAP permits the reliable coordination of email
synchronization, despite not being built on a reliable messaging

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 11:23:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:01 UTC