- From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:38:24 -0400
- To: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
- Message-id: <44BF08C0.6000303@tibco.com>
Summarizing previous discussion: * It appears that the sender and receiver have separate copies of the properties, but this is not explicitly mentioned. * The State property is defined as containing either Success or Fail "at a terminal state", but there is no mention of when which copy of this property takes which value, or when "a terminal state occurs", or in what way the property containing Fail may correspond to generation of faults. * The FailureReason property "denotes a pattern-specific, binding-independent reason for the failure of a message." Given that a binding-independent reason cannot be defined by a particular binding, and no such reasons are mentioned in the MEP description itself, where are such reasons to be defined? * It seems likely, though again this is not stated, that "more binding-specific details of the failure" may bear some relation to faults produced by the sender or receiver. Is there any such relation? * Addressing the previous three points would most likely only complicate matters, and in any case error handling is driven by the generation and disposition of faults. It seems best to drop the properties altogether. * The receiver MUST determine whether a message was successfully received. It is not stated explicitly, but presumably this would be for a given instance of the MEP. In some realizations of the MEP, it will not necessarily be possible for the receiver to know that the sender has done anything at all. In practice, either the receiver's set of properties will be populated, or it won't. This argues for defining receipt of a message as population of the receiver's set of properties, and stating that this can happen zero or more times in a given instance of the MEP. * Unlike the request-response case, it is quite feasible and useful to realize the one-way MEP directly in a multicast environment. In such an environment, there may be zero or more receivers for any given message -- that is, for a given ImmediateDestination -- and this set may change from instance to instance of the MEP. The statement that "The scope of a one-way MEP is limited to the exchange of a message between one sending and one receiving SOAP node." directly precludes this useful behavior. Nor can multicast be usefully treated as multiple MEP instances without specifying how it is that the instances share the OutboundMessage property and how the limitation to exactly one sender and receiver squares with the case where there is one sender and no receiver. Spelling out such a scheme would add needless complexity. Proposal: A revised proposal [1] eliminates the redundant and under-specified properties, explicitly states that the sender and receivers each have their own copies of the remaining properties, states that a receiver's properties may be populated zero or more times in an instance of the MEP, and specifically allows for multicast. This proposal also attempts to state more explicitly what a valid binding is obligated to define. Further discussion [2] has suggested further possible clarifications, particularly regarding the use of the term "notification of receipt". These should be discussed and possibly incorporated. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jun/att-0004/one-way-mep-june-2006.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jul/0001.html and following thread
Received on Thursday, 20 July 2006 04:38:45 UTC