- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:55:31 +0100
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "Patrick R. McManus" <mcmanus@datapower.com>, Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: >It's an interesting question whether one should bother naming two one way MEPs that differ only in the likelihood of delivery in the face of short-term network trouble. My inclination would be to define at most one FAF MEP and leave it as a quality of service of the binding what the likelyhood of delivery would be. > Or are you implicitly calling for a "qos" property on the MEP (assuming there's an API to find a transport based on a MEP property and there's an application/middleware with a little bit of intelligence and not all hardwired in WSDL, all such things having a faint probability to occur in practice)? JJ.
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 08:56:04 UTC