- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:15:13 -0800
- To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- CC: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
Isn't that what Ref Parameters allow you to do? -Anish -- David Hull wrote: > > The discussion of message correlation I've seen so far deals with > correlating one message directly with another, in particular a reply > with its request. There is another well-known approach, however, namely > correlating messages with some "context" entity. In the case of simple > message correlation, the initiating message itself serves as a context > marker, but it's also possible for an initial operation to create or > obtain a context ID and for subsequent messages to reference it. This > is common practice in many real-world systems, and there are standards > in my mammoth "to read" pile (e.g., WS-Context) that aim to address this. > > The immediate question is, is there any need or desire to broaden the > concept of Message ID to something like "Context ID" or "Correlation > ID", or is it OK just to treat context as a separate issue? I'm leaning > towards the latter. For example, a given request/reply may exist within > the context of some larger conversation. Basic message correlation ties > the reply to the request, and some other ID ties the whole operation to > the larger conversation. But on the other hand maybe all this is saying > is that the same message can belong to multiple contexts at once. > > From a WSA point of view, it's seems OK to stick with message > correlation. Establishing a context and then referencing it in two > messages just to handle something simple like request/reply sounds like > serious overkill. > >
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2005 04:32:46 UTC