- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:05:42 +0100
- To: tom@coastin.com
- CC: "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Tom Rutt wrote: > Mark Little wrote: > >> >> > MessageID can be in the message even if a reply is not expected. If a > reply is expected then the MessageID must be present. This is the status > quo behaviour of the Last Call spec. I know that. Sorry, you misunderstood. I was asking whether using RequestID might still cause confusion because the name implies (at least to me) that a response is expected. Since MessageID/RequestID is optional and MAY occur if ReplyTo/FaultTo aren't present, there's the potential for confusion. Mark. > > Tom Rutt > >> >> 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 14:05:38 UTC