RE: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was RE: Agenda for 5 December WSA telcon)

I believe what Dave is referring to (an ack) would allow application level reliability protocols to be built, and I support his proposal to start with it.

As a sort of aside, a lot of the Web services discussions remind me both of the early days of integration (when everything was a file get, put, update, or delete, and the application was expected to interpret all the data in the file) and of issues related to asynchronous message queueing.  In this latter category the simple ack is very valuable, and I hope we're not getting sidetracked thinking about reliable messaging for RPCs ;-)

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Baker, Mark 
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 1:52 PM
To: David Orchard
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was RE: Agenda
for 5 December WSA telcon)



On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:41:23AM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> I think that a simple acknowledgement protocol in soap headers would be very
> useful and hit an 80/20 point.  We've consistently heard from customers and
> partners that reliable messaging is very important to them.  I support the
> discussion and architectural description of reliable messaging in this
> forum.

I agree that would be useful, but I think it's a long way from an 80/20
solution.

> And saying that reliable messaging protocols don't make sense is akin to
> saying that we don't need tcp as ip already exists.

Maybe I wasn't clear.  I'm for "reliable messaging protocols" if they're
application layer extensions.  I'm (generally) against them if they're
transport protocols (like HTTPR).

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis

Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 15:36:45 UTC