W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Proposed text on reliability in the web services architecture

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:30:32 -0500
To: Hao He <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>, Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@choreology.com>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <006601c2be3d$635088e0$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>


> Let's start with " a client X deposites $100 into server Y".  This is a
> logical operation and it is non-idempotent.  Let's identify this operation
> as "http://example.com/bank/depo/1234".
> To perform this operation, the client has to send a request to the server.
> The request identifies itself
> as a request instance of "http://example.com/bank/depo/1234".  Now, I want
> the physical operation of sending such requests to be idempotent.  So, if
> something goes wrong for whatever reason, or even the client is unsure
> what has happened, the client simply sends the request again without
> the logical operation to be performed more than once.
> So, would you consider this still RM?

Yes.  If the thing with identity is a message*, then it's message state
that's being set, and that's a messaging phenomenon.  However, if you said
that http://example.com/bank/depo/1234 was a deposit, and you were
using HTTP to PUT <amount>$101</amount> to that URI, then I would
say you have elevated your strategy to using idempotenct on application
level objects.

* although your example is not entirely consistent on this.

Do you have a different take?

Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 10:30:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:02 UTC