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

RE: Next Steps in Reliable Messaging (was RE: Different Levels o f Rel iable Messaging)

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:00:08 -0800
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D153C@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
To: "'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
The ebXML spec actually allowed you to go all the way up to level 4 as it
included two "transactions":
1. A Ping transaction that allowed you to determine if a connector was up
and running (it should have been at the service level though), and
2. A Message Status transaction that allowed you to determine if a message
had been received.
 
What ebXML did not do is describe how these could be used together with
Reliable Messaging to do Connection Based Reliable Messaging (Level 2) or
Reliable Messaging with Recovery (Level 3) or the two in combination (Level
4).
 
I agree that the basic acknowledgment should not go to XMLP. However it is
not clear where it should go either.
 
David

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 9:43 PM
To: Champion, Mike; Assaf Arkin; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Next Steps in Reliable Messaging (was RE: Different Levels of
Rel iable Messaging)


I believe that this is
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Dec/0083.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Dec/0083.html> , as
referenced in my summary.
 
Although I am obviously far less expert than the people having this
technical discussion, perhaps I could comment that it worries me that they,
or someone, is talking about sending level 0 of this stack to XMLP and
defering the higher levels.  This does not seem right to me because level
zero does not seem to include the basics contained in the ebXML RM spec --
which I consider to be somewhat minimal.  Aspects that do not seem to be
contained are repeated tries at delivery by the sender and handling by the
receiver of repeated receptions of the same message.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:18 PM
To: Assaf Arkin; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Next Steps in Reliable Messaging (was RE: Different Levels of
Rel iable Messaging)


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:39 PM
To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Next Steps in Reliable Messaging (was RE: Different Levels of
Rel iable Messaging)


I apologize for any lengthy discussion on my part. 
 

Not at all!  I'm not trying to stifle the discussion, just make sure that we
touch on the topics that the working group will ultimately have to deal with
to push the idea forward. 
 
Can someone point us to David's "6 levels" ... recall that not all of us
have read the whole thread.
 
Thanks again!
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 13:59:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:11 GMT