- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:24:09 -0500
- To: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Ricky Ho To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Sent: 1/25/2003 10:49 AM Subject: RM and Intermediaries > S --> i1 --> i2 --> R > Do i1 and i2 have to understand RM ? or RM is just an end-to-end > handshaking between S and R ? If so, can S pick a different path in its > message resend ? As best I understand it, this is the main use case for RM at the SOAP level - end to end RM rather than the point to point RM. So long as the RM headers are not mustUnderstand=true (or the intermediaries are transport-level intermediaries rather than SOAP intermediaries), the intermediaries can participate or not participate in the protocol, and the inter-point transports can be reliable or unreliable as reality dictates. Still, the application gets the advantages of RM as if it were guaranteed by a single TCP connection, a MOM, or whatever. Does this seem reasonable?
Received on Saturday, 25 January 2003 12:24:11 UTC