- From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:30:55 +0200
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
comments inline Rich Salz wrote: > >> This scheme allows more scalable implementations (e.g, get uri at >> bootup, use system time when message composed cast as unsigned long >> for the integer portion of the message Id. > > > Isn't this an implementation detail? There are other mechanisms that > are similarly efficient and opaque (e.g., uuid's) > >> If we did this change, the relibility specs might utilize ws >> addressing message Id when present in a message. > > > And they wouldn't if we didn't? Why? Reliability needs an id for a sequence of messages, and a sequence number for each message within that sequence. both ws-reliability and ws-reliable messaging have their own elements in their headers for this purpose. The could not change to use ws-addressing message id unless it had both a uri and an integer as the messageID. Perhaps it is not bad to have reliability use its own message ID, for orthongonality purposes. I am just investigating an approach which would allow reuse of the message ID for addressing for reliability. Tom Rutt > > /r$ > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 17:33:03 UTC