- From: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:52:12 -0500
- To: "'Francis McCabe'" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Cc: "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
+1, it can be easily proven. Have done it several years ago. But, it doesn't mean there can't be useful but imperfect schemes that solve this problem in some special cases... Cheers, -Suresh Sterling Commerce -----Original Message----- From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com] Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 4:14 PM To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) Cc: 'Christopher B Ferris'; Mark Baker; Burdett, David; www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org Subject: Re: Reliable messaging Yes, the `distributed systems corollary' of the halting theorem might be phrased as: "you cannot distinguish a lazy node from a dead node" Frank On Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 01:29 PM, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote: > I know of mechanisms that, if successful, will assure the sender that > the message HAS been received. I do not know of any mechanism that > will allow the sender to know that the message has NOT been received. > The ebXML spec most certainly does not. So I believe that the word > "whether" below is inappropriate. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:25 PM > To: Mark Baker > Cc: Burdett, David; www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org > Subject: Re: Reliable messaging > > > #1 in my definition reads: > > the ability of a sender to be able to determine whether a given > message has been received by its intended receiver ... > > It doesn't speak of a mechanism, but there are many means of achieving > this. > > Cheers, > > Christopher Ferris > Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com > phone: +1 508 234 3624 > > www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 08/29/2002 04:01:41 PM: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:48:41AM -0700, Burdett, David wrote: > > > I like your definitions, however, they do not address what I > think is the > > > certainty that although you can be sure a message was received, > you can > > > never be absolutely sure that it was not. > > > > How can you be sure that a message was received? Because there's > always > > a chance that the response to a message doesn't make it, and leaves > the > > two parties out of synch (i.e. two army problem). > > > > MB > > -- > > Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) > > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org > > http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com > >
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 23:53:17 UTC