Re: FW: Reliable Messaging Summary

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:26:38AM -0600, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
> This looks to me like a good definition within the context of looking at
> architecture, but in the context of RM it doesn't look entirely
> appropriate to me.  In the same sense that some of the definitions of
> synchronous floating around look perfectly fine to me, but not
> appropriate for our particular context.

Agreed.  I just thought that these definitions may be glossary-bound,
and if that's the case I think that either a more general definition of
reliability is required, or alternately I suppose, that "reliable" is
qualified as applying to reliable messaging only.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis

Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 22:16:41 UTC