- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:49:48 +0100
- To: "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>
- CC: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, tom@coastin.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Conor P. Cahill wrote: >Mark Little wrote on 6/16/2005, 9:13 AM: > > > > > I didn't mean to imply you'd said sessions explicitly and thought the > > rest of my message made that clear. It's just that the term correlation > > id is often used when talking about sessions. If you're just talking > > about simply tying together a request and a response (with subsequent > > requests having different "ids") then I reiterate that I don't have a > > problem with MessageID, or (going back to the mid 80's when RPCs were > > the king) SequenceNumber. I think shifting to CorrelationID runs the > > risk of increasing the confusion you mention. > >So, to summarize, I'm saying that MessageID has proven to be *extremely* >confusing to everybody, incuding most of the people in this group. You >are saying that choosing the name CorrelationID may also have some level >of confusing. > > Yes, that's a fair summary. >So, how about using RequestID. > > I think it more closely maps to the requirements, particularly since you can't have a MessageID/RequestID without a ReplyTo. However, what are the semantics if you have a RequestID and no ReplyTo? Doesn't the syntax of RequestID imply a response is also required and hence the name might still be confusing? (Just playing Devil's Advocate.) Mark. >Conor > > > >
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 13:49:35 UTC