W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Please don't rely on JMSMessageID for Protocol 2038.

From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:08:38 -0700
Message-ID: <4CAA5E76.10207@tibco.com>
To: David Naramski <david@nowina.net>
CC: public-soap-jms@w3.org
 HI David,

I'm following up on a loose thread.  You submitted a comment to the
SOAP/JMS working group [1].

In preparing a "disposition of comments" document in preparation for
eventually completing the standard. Along the way, I noticed that we got
a response from you that looked like you agreed with our approach [3],
but it doesn't look like we ever got back to you to confirm that you
specifically like the end result, a change to Protocol-2038 [2].

So that I can record this properly for posterity, can you confirm that
the changed text meets your expectations?



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Jun/0015.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Jun/0023.html

On 06/20/2010 12:28 PM, David Naramski wrote:
> which I thank you, I understand that we agree that amending the
> Protocol 2038 is the best solution. Because : 
> 1) It works entirely without  WS-A. 
> 2) It only relies on the JMS core mechanisms (JMSMessageId and
> JMSCorrelationID).
> 3) This is a minimal change to the current specification that does not
> change the default behaviour. 
> The original rule : 
>     S MUST copy the JMSMessageID from the original
>     request to the JMSCorrelationID of the response
> Becomes :
>     if there is no JMSCorrelationId set in the request, 
>         S MUST copy the JMSMessageID from the original 
>         request to the JMSCorrelationID of the response.
>     else 
>         S MUST copy the JMSCorrelationID from original 
>         request to the JMSCorrelationID
Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 23:08:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:24:48 UTC