- From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@propylon.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:10:56 +0000
- To: Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>
- CC: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Miles Sabin wrote: > Peter Furniss wrote, > >>The cure, as Miles says, is to get the assurance of processing from >>the processor, not from the intermediary. > > [...] > The problem is that arranging for those backend systems to signal a > failure back to the gateway, so the later can provide a nack back as > part of a WS reliable messaging protocol, might be difficult or > impossible. So if the gateway sends an ack back to the sender it could > be misreporting a failure as a success ... hence the connection with > byzantine failures. I don't have much else to add here (it was Miles that educated me on this stuff me a few years ago anyway), other than the fact that gatewaying WS based RM to legacy is a very real issue, particulary having to mesh with legacy systems that are batch driven, have service windows or require the gateway to hold state in order to reconcille inbound and outbound messages because the interface to the legacy system 'can't' be changed to roundtrip information like message or correlation ids through (btw I'm not really thinking about banking systems). All this to think about as well as protocols like HTTP and SMTP. In any case I hope a model that can be used for WS RM falls out of this discussion. Bill de hÓra
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 05:13:00 UTC