- From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@ilx.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:31:46 -0400
- To: "'Burdett, David'" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> So the conclusion I think I would draw from this is as follows: > 1. We need a well designed "reliable messaging" support within the > architecture that can enable very high probabilities of > successful delivery > of a message. > 2. The reliable messaging support must provide a mechanism of > notifying an > application that the message could not be delivered, so that > the application > can take a compensating action if they want, and > 3. Reliable Messaging should be optional - you don't have to > use it if you > don't want to - as Mark points out, there are other ways of > realizing this > requirement. As far as I can tell, all the tension in this argument about RM is between RM and "protocol independence", because all of the above described reliability is provided by TCP/IP. If we want web services to have "reliability", where reliability is defined in reasonable terms as above, then it sounds simply like a transport protocol choice. Please tell me what nuances I am missing. Walden Mathews
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 11:32:22 UTC