- From: Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:48:36 -0500
- To: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:17 PM, Walden Mathews wrote: > This is a fascinating observation. In other words, "reliability" > can only be defined in terms readily understood within the > application "domain of discourse"? Or is there some other > level? I don't think I'd use the word "only". On the other hand, it's plausible that "reliability" has quite different meanings for, say, video-on-demand and banking. For some applications, predictable jitter is more important than exactly-once semantics. If I'm sending sensor readings, cheap but lossy may be just fine. Etcetera. In practice, a relatively small number of patterns is likely to emerge, with associated ontologies and semantics. It's worth looking at how systems like JMS (Java Messaging Service) coped with the problem of abstracting quality of service (including reliability).
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 13:49:23 UTC