[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Review of Reliable Messaging Spec v0-074
Gordon, I'm also enmeshed this week in 'day job' work, which is making it hard to keep up with the volumes of email. A hotel room with no telephone doesn't help! Comments below. Jim At 02:54 PM 8/21/00 -0700, Gordon van Huizen wrote: >Jim, > >I'm on a plane at the moment, and hence am out of list contact, so >forgive me if I'm out of order with the following observations. I >believe there are two issues to resolve regarding requirements for ebXML >reliable messaging prior to converging on comments to be addressed in >the spec: > >1) The "level" of the messaging service that the reliability spec >addresses, particularly WRT to RM-GROUP semantics. As I said in another email, I think the best procedural way to deal with this point is for you or someone to make a specific proposal for a change (addition?) to the appropriate requirements document. We need to get the requirements correctly written down. I am very sympathetic to the statements that the Messaging Service might be transport-aware, and therefore be able to make reasonable choices for real-world solutions. For interoperability, however, there must be a transport-agnostic (there, I've said it again!) solution possible. >2) Whether the reliability requirement is truly for AtMostOnce >semantics or for something more. An amount of the reliable messaging >spec goes well above the strict interpretation of AtMostOnce, with no >way to specify through the message header whether this is desired or >not. I have a longer diatribe about this in my Messaging Service spec >comments. Fujitsu wrote a definition of 'RM' in the latest draft: AtMostOnce with timeout. Again, requesting other semantics (which are, of course, defined) is useful (and maybe mandatory) in the real world, but we should allow for a simple solution that will meet minimum needs. >We've been discussing issue 1 for awhile, but I'd like to see >us come to closure on both these of these issues ASAP so we can move >forward. > >-gvh- Jim Hughes Fujitsu
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC