Re: MOM and reliable messaging article by Chris

IMO mapping across messaging systems could also be accomplished by an 
intermediate process that could map an incoming transport into a neutral 
format and from there to an outgoing transport. WS-ReliableMessaging 
could potentially allow such a bridge across different reliable 
messaging systems, with conveyance of important semantic information 
such as message ids across the boundary. It facilitates this by
specifying what information is part of the reliability contract, with 
bindings presumably detailing how that information is mapped into and 
out of particular transports.

This could be done without having an inter-process protocol in the 
middle that isn't part of a vendor's MOM.

--Jon

Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> 
> Ugo,
> 
> I think that I can provide an authoritative response:) Please see below.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christopher Ferris
> Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> phone: +1 508 234 3624
> 
> www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 05/12/2003 01:46:45 PM:
> 
>  >
>  > I read the article and I found the section "WS-ReliableMessaging as 
> middleware interoperability
>  > protocol" both interesting and unclear regarding the proposed 
> solution. The section says:
>  >
>  > "We believe that the most important prospect for the 
> WS-ReliableMessaging protocol will be to
>  > provide the standard protocol for interoperability between different 
> vendors' message oriented
>  > middleware environments. In this scenario, we envisage that 
> WS-ReliableMessaging would be
>  > augmented with a set of standardized WSDL portTypes and bindings that 
> would be specific to
>  > endpoint managers. These standardized portTypes and bindings would be 
> implemented by vendors of
>  > messaging middleware products to enable messages from other 
> middleware environments to be
>  > reliably, and interoperably exchanged with their own".
>  >
>  > What is not clear to me is what type of transport the 
> WS-ReliableMessaging protocol would use in
>  > this scenario. Would it be HTTP? Would it be a new transport 
> specifically designed to support
> 
> For interoperability purposes the binding would likely be HTTP, but 
> other protocols might be suitable
> as well (e.g. BEEP).
> 
>  > reliable messaging and still to be standardized? (Evidently it cannot 
> be one of the existing MOM
>  > protocols, or JMS providers, since they all have their own wire 
> protocol implementation and only
>  > one endpoint manager would be able to understand it).
> 
> Well, it certainly *could* be, but the likelihood of that happenstance 
> is infinitesimal as compared
> to using HTTP;)
> 
>  >
>  > Ugo
>  >
>  > > -----Original Message-----
>  > > From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com]
>  > > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 2:11 PM
>  > > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>  > > Subject: MOM and reliable messaging article by Chris
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-rmimp/
>  > >
>  > > Implementation strategies for WS-ReliableMessaging
>  > >
>  > > Christopher Ferris (chrisfer@us.ibm.com), IBM
>  > > John Ibbotson (john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com), IBM
>  > > Tony Storey (tony_storey@uk.ibm.com), IBM
>  > > May 5, 2003
>  > > This paper discusses considerations for realizing robustness,
>  > > integrity, and
>  > > performance required for reliable messaging implementations using the
>  > > recently released WS-ReliableMessaging specification and
>  > > describes the role
>  > > of message oriented middleware to address these.
>  > >
>  > >
>  >

Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 14:06:36 UTC