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

RE: [RTF] AC019 proposal to WSA WG

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@ilx.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:31:46 -0400
Message-ID: <1373D6342FA1D4119A5100E029437F640155F820@clifford.devo.ilx.com>
To: "'Burdett, David'" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

> So the conclusion I think I would draw from this is as follows:
> 1. We need a well designed "reliable messaging" support within the
> architecture that can enable very high probabilities of 
> successful delivery
> of a message.
> 2. The reliable messaging support must provide a mechanism of 
> notifying an
> application that the message could not be delivered, so that 
> the application
> can take a compensating action if they want, and
> 3. Reliable Messaging should be optional - you don't have to 
> use it if you
> don't want to - as Mark points out, there are other ways of 
> realizing this
> requirement.


As far as I can tell, all the tension in this argument about RM is
between RM and "protocol independence", because all of the above described
reliability is provided by TCP/IP.

If we want web services to have "reliability", where reliability is
defined in reasonable terms as above, then it sounds simply like a
transport protocol choice.

Please tell me what nuances I am missing.

Walden Mathews
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 11:32:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:01 GMT