- From: Li, Li (Li) <lli5@avaya.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:35:33 -0400
- To: "Gilbert Pilz" <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <7DC6C0F0E8D7C74FB4E1E73CC371280A0120BAB7@300813ANEX2.global.avaya.com>
Gil & Doug, I don't feel option (a) is equivalent to current spec, since in (a) subscriber cannot provide any expiration value for event source to shoot for (using the best-effort strategy). On the other hand, I think the current spec covers the options in your proposal as follows: Current spec: subscriber asks for expiration T1 > 0, event source returns a subscription with T2 > 0. For (a), T1 = infinity, T2 > 0 For (b), T1 = infinity, T2 = infinity For (c), T1 > 0, T2 >= T1 I think the current spec provides a more generic framework from which these options can be derived. This means an event source can restrict the framework to fulfill your requirements. For example, if you implemented the latest and greatest event source that never cuts off the requested expiration as in (c), you can advertise that in the SLA (maybe using policy) of the event source. Any subscriber following the generic framework should be interoperable to that event source without any change. Thanks, Li ________________________________ From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:23 PM To: Li, Li (Li) Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org Subject: Re: proposal for 7478 (too add to the other threads on this subject) I think you are missing an important aspect in the proposal and that is that the Subscriber is provided with a greater/clearer range of expression with regards to expiration. The Subscriber can now say (a) "I don't care when/if this Subscription expires", (b) "I need a Subscription that never expires", (c) "I need a Subscription that, if it does expire, expires no sooner than X". Option (c) is a new feature. The member submission, effectively, only allowed for (a) or (b). True, the Subscriber was allowed to provide an expiration time but, since the Event Source was allowed to ignore it, you end up with (a) - the Subscriber/Event Sink had to be able to deal with whatever the Event Sink decided upon. If you have a use case in which the Subscriber "may want to accept a Subscription with a shorter expiration, with the hope that it can renew it later on when the event source is less loaded", that Subscriber should use option (a). You don't have to use option (c) and "repeatedly submit subscriptions with shorter expiration in order to be accepted". - gp On 9/16/2009 7:19 AM, Li, Li (Li) wrote: This response concerns point 2) and 3) in the proposal as point 1) is in a separate issue and point 4) depends on 2) and 3). This proposal changes the current WS-E draft in the following ways: 1) It removes the possibility for an event source to return an expiration that is less/earlier than the value requested by the subscriber in a successful subscription; 2) It removes the following paragraph from the definition of Expires element in Section 4.1: If this element does not appear, then the request is for a subscription that will not expire. That is, the subscriber is requesting the event source to create a subscription with an indefinite lifetime. If the event source grants such a subscription, it MAY be terminated by the subscriber using an Unsubscribe request, or it MAY be terminated by the event source at any time for reasons such as connection termination, resource constraints, or system shut-down. By change 1), it assumes all subscribers will never accept any subscriptions with a shorter expiration. Therefore, there is no need to create such subscription in the first place. While this may be the case in some situations, I'm not sure WS-E should enforce this assumption for all situations. In some situations, a subscriber may want to accept a subscription with a shorter expiration, with the hope that it can renew it later on when the event source is less loaded. In some cases, getting some notifications now is better than getting no notifications at all. If we remove this flexibility, a subscriber desperate for notifications has to repeatedly submit subscriptions with shorter expiration in order to be accepted. Therefore, I feel this restriction should be enforced by the event source implementations, instead of the spec itself. By change 2), the proposal gives the people impression that an indefinite subscription cannot be terminated by the event source. Thanks, Li Li
Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 14:36:17 UTC