RE: Next Steps in Reliable Messaging (was RE: Different Levels of Rel iable Messaging)

Assaf
 
You're advocating including the acknowledgement capability into XMLP. I
don't think this will fly and I don't think we should as:
1. Acknowledgements would be implemented as a SOAP Module/Feature
2. XMLP does not (I think) include ANY SOAP Modules/Features at the moment
so it would set a huge change of objectives
3. Many SOAP implementations will not need acknowledgements. Therefore
including it in the XMLP spec is unnecessary scope creep.
 
I agree though that an acknowledgement spec is needed. What I would suggest
is:
1. Developing an Acknowledgement spec that can be layered on top of XMLP as
a SOAP Module
2. Developing a RM spec (covering levels 1 to 4 in [1]) on top
 
But this only works if there is a group that can do the architectural work
to decide:
1. What features are required
2. How those features are related one-to-another
3. How they can be used in combination.
 
Shoult the WS Architecture group do this or should it be done elsewhere?
 
David
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Dec/0083.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Dec/0083.html> 

-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 11:06 AM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Next Steps in Reliable Messaging (was RE: Different Levels of
Rel iable Messaging)


Roger,
 
I acknoweldge a mistake on my part. I was referring to David's Level 0-5 but
not putting that in the proper context.
 
I believe an optimal architecture for developing high-level ("business")
applications that perform reliable asynchronous messaging requires RMs that
deal with repeated retries, repeated acks, and once-only message delivery.
Such RMs are widely available and deployed today (MOMs), and throughout the
discussion I assumed developers would opt to use such RMs.
 
From the perspective of XMLP, the "application" is the RM, not the
high-level application that uses the RM. XMLP needs to provide those
capabilities that an RM would require in order to interoperate with any
other RM. The minimal requirement here is to standardize the headers and the
ack message.
 
So by standardizing on Level 0 at the XMLP level, and selecting to use an RM
that does additional levels, we get reliable messaging for the high-level
application.
 
arkin
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 9:43 PM
To: Champion, Mike; Assaf Arkin; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Next Steps in Reliable Messaging (was RE: Different Levels of
Rel iable Messaging)


I believe that this is
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Dec/0083.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Dec/0083.html> , as
referenced in my summary.
 
Although I am obviously far less expert than the people having this
technical discussion, perhaps I could comment that it worries me that they,
or someone, is talking about sending level 0 of this stack to XMLP and
defering the higher levels.  This does not seem right to me because level
zero does not seem to include the basics contained in the ebXML RM spec --
which I consider to be somewhat minimal.  Aspects that do not seem to be
contained are repeated tries at delivery by the sender and handling by the
receiver of repeated receptions of the same message.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:18 PM
To: Assaf Arkin; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Next Steps in Reliable Messaging (was RE: Different Levels of
Rel iable Messaging)


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:39 PM
To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Next Steps in Reliable Messaging (was RE: Different Levels of
Rel iable Messaging)


I apologize for any lengthy discussion on my part. 
 

Not at all!  I'm not trying to stifle the discussion, just make sure that we
touch on the topics that the working group will ultimately have to deal with
to push the idea forward. 
 
Can someone point us to David's "6 levels" ... recall that not all of us
have read the whole thread.
 
Thanks again!