W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2006

Re: The deep difference between request/response andfire-and-forget

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:18:51 -0500
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "Patrick R. McManus" <mcmanus@datapower.com>, Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7D072769.4D7A7573-ON85257107.006F280B-85257107.006F9727@lotus.com>

Jean-Jacques Moreau writes:

> Or are you implicitly calling for a "qos" property on the MEP

No.  In fact, while I think doing the MEP at all is a good idea sooner or 
later, I'm neutral as to whether we should even tackle it in this round. 
Unlike David Orchard, I feel that it is pretty close to being in the space 
of the specific work we're being asked to do here.  In fact, our original 
task was stated as "create a one-way MEP", and it was we who (correctly) 
reinterpreted that as "solve WSA's problem."  Unlike what I take to be 
David Hull's position to be, I don't think it's essential we do it now 
either.  As I've said, I'm unconvinced that supporting it on HTTP is wise 
in any case. 

If we do a one-way, I think that formalizing a qos property is complexity 
that will be hard to get right.  On balance, I think I'd keep it simple 
and do a straightforward one-way, without saying much about the qos 
parameters.  If one ever did want to look at qos, then there would be more 
than one parameter to consider.  Certainly expected delivery time and 
likelihood of delivery are both potentially important.  I'd start by 
keeping it simple and not trying to formalize either.

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 20:19:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:29 UTC