RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging

+1!!!!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Ugo Corda
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:59 PM
> To: jdart@tibco.com
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of
> WS-ReliableMessaging
> 
> 
> 
> How about working on the OASIS TC to augment the WS-Reliability 
> spec with the necessary additions (you already mention below that 
> a metadata mechanism is on the list of future OASIS TC 
> capabilities), instead of just going a completely separate way?
> 
> Ugo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jon Dart [mailto:jdart@tibco.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:46 AM
> > To: Ugo Corda
> > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Questions prompted by the publication of
> > WS-ReliableMessaging
> > 
> > 
> > Ugo Corda wrote:
> > > WS-Reliability does not seem to preclude supporting 
> > bindings other than HTTP. 
> > 
> > Indeed. But there are numerous practical obstacles to having 
> > it support 
> > MOM. I won't list them all, but one crucial difference is that 
> > WS-ReliableMessaging uses policy assertions to publish 
> > messaging options 
> > in the form of shared metadata. In the OASIS spec, there is 
> > no metadata 
> > (WSDL is a "futures" item), so everything is done in the SOAP 
> > headers. 
> > What if your messaging system needs to set up reliable 
> > delivery options 
> > before it can receive a message? Not possible in the present 
> > form of the 
> > spec.
> > 
> > --Jon
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 15:43:18 UTC