[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: FWD Re: Failed posting on RM issues
It was my interpretation that an RM-Group is between a specific sender/receiver/transport. Further I assume the sender/receiver mapped to a specific TPA instance. This led to the assumption that pollling frequency could be specified in TPA. Marty, you seem to be implying that an RM-Group could contain messages related to multiple TPAs. Which is the correct assumption about RM-Group? BTW This sort of thing is again pointing to the need of clarifying what an RM-Group is. 6) One or more messages between the Sender and Receiver on the same Sender-Receiver-Transport triplet may be sent using Reliable Messaging semantics. This sequence messages is termed an “RM-Group”. -- Regards, Farrukh mwsachs@us.ibm.com wrote: > Sspecifying polling frequency in the TPA is not appropriate because a given > TPA involves two particular partners while the RM function involves all > TPAs using the particular transport path. Each TPA might specify different > polling frequencies. Oour goal should continue to be to keep the RM > details transparent to the application (and therefore transparent to the > TPA). One could think about a TPA which defines the relationship between > two Messaging Service instances but this should be a last resort. > > The RM proposal indeed increases efficiency by decreasing the ACK frequency > but as I discussed in my comments to the current version of RM, this > efficiency is at the cost of substantially increased latency for each > message since no received message can be passed up to the application until > all messages in the RM group have been successfully received. > > Regards, > Marty > > ************************************************************************************* > > Martin W. Sachs > IBM T. J. Watson Research Center > P. O. B. 704 > Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 > 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 > Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM > Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com > ************************************************************************************* > > Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> on 08/24/2000 10:54:14 AM > > To: ebxml transport <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org> > cc: > Subject: FWD Re: Failed posting on RM issues > > Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > > > Chris, > > > > For some reason my post failed. It seems that the list srever may be > > having problems. If you have any secret weapons please try and post this > > for me in advance of todays POC call. BTW I have been meaning to say > > welcome back from vacation. Hope it was the best. > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > Farrukh > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Subject: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed > > Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 07:55:34 -0400 (EDT) > > From: PMDF at eList eXpress <postmaster@eListX.com> > > To: Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com > > > > This report relates to a message you sent with the following header > fields: > > > > Message-id: <39A50D97.55587DBA@east.sun.com> > > Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 07:57:11 -0400 > > From: Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com> > > To: "ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org> > > Subject: A few comments on RM spec > > > > Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients: > > > > Recipient address: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org > > Reason: Not found in directory > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Original-envelope-id: 0FZS00002P4MBM@eListX.com > > Reporting-MTA: dns;eListX.com (DIRECTORY-DAEMON) > > > > Action: failed > > Status: 5.1.1 (Not found in directory) > > Original-recipient: rfc822;ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org > > Final-recipient: rfc822;ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Subject: A few comments on RM spec > > Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 07:57:11 -0400 > > From: Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com> > > Organization: Java Software East > > To: "ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org> > > > > First let me congratulate Shimamura San on a very elegant description of > > issues in the RM spec. > > > > In my first reading I was not clear what the RM-Group was all about. I > > had it mixed up with conversationId. It took soem time to realize that > > this group of messages is not grouping messages related to a > > conversation but possibly messages from several conversations between > > the same two parties over the same transport. This could be better > > explained in the spec. > > > > The main purpose of RM-group seems to be efficiency by aggregating acks > > for all messages in an RM-group to a single group ack. The motivation > > and purpose of RM-groups should be mentioned in spec. > > > > The remainder of this note outlines some issues I perceive and in some > > cases suggestions for improvement. > > > > Do We Need RM-Group Complexity? > > -------------------------------------------- > > RM-Groups certainly add some additional complexity in the implementation > > of RM in a ebXML messaging service. The only rationale I can identify is > > performance efficiencies. Immediate concern is whether this is a > > premature optimization that is pushing against the KISS principal and > > is best to defer to a second version of ebXML. > > > > Determination of RM-Group boundaries > > ----------------------------------------- > > While I started by questioning the need for RM-Groups, I did spend some > > time thinking about it. This led me to realize that the biggest issue I > > have with RM-Group is not implementation complexity but the fact that > > the spec currently seems to imply that it is up to the application layer > > to determine the begin and end boundaries of an RM-Group. > > > > If my interpretation is correct then this is not desirable. Applications > > have enough to worry about already and the goal of ebXML should be to > > relieve the application of as much application neutral responsibilities > > as possible. I cannot see how (or why) application would determine when > > to begin or end an RM-group. Application errors can now impact RM > > delivery of messages. > > > > I would be satisfied with the RM-Group concept despite added complexity, > > if we could find a way for the RM layer to determine RM-Group > > boundaries. One possibility I could think of is as follows. The TPA > > defines a polling interval for the RM layer to check for messages for > > each TPA. The interval could be immediate (event driven) or some other > > periodic frequency specified in TPA. The RM implementation could use > > this TPA info to do a combination of event driven + polling. When it > > checks for messages waiting to be delivered for a TPA it could then make > > them all be part of RM-Group. The actual RM-Group semantics and > > algorithms would remain unchanged. The main improvement is that it is up > > to the RM layer to determine the RM-Group boundary and set the > > appropriate header fields defined by the RM spec. Does this sound like > > it could work? > > > > Transport Specific Nature of RM-Group > > ----------------------------------------- > > It is possible that message exchanges between 2 parties may occur over > > different transports. Even the same message may involve different > > transports > > during different hops. I am not sure why an RM-group is tied to a > > sender-receiver-transport rather than sender-receiver. I suspect it is > > because > > the transport level error are being delegated to transport layer rather > > than > > the RM layer. At the very least a recommend a clearer description in the > > spec on > > why the transport is a consideration. > > > > Loss of an Error Message > > -------------------------- > > The spec mentions the issue regarding loss of an error message but does > > not offer a solution. Would the following solution work? When an error > > message is lost, the sender of the error message detecting a timeout if > > no messages are resent for that group and resends the Error message (N) > > times. If all attempts fail it raises an error to the application layer. > > > > Thanks again to for a good spec. > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > Farrukh Najmi > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Farrukh S. Najmi <najmi@east.sun.com> > > Sun Microsystems > > Java Software > > > > Farrukh S. Najmi > > Sun Microsystems <najmi@east.sun.com> > > Java Software HTML Mail > > 1 Network Drive, MS BUR02-302 Fax: 781-442-1610 > > Burlington Work: 781-442-0703 > > MA > > 01803-0902 > > USA > > Additional Information: > > Last Name Najmi > > First Name Farrukh > > Version 2.1 > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Farrukh S. Najmi <najmi@east.sun.com> > > Sun Microsystems > > Java Software > > > > Farrukh S. Najmi > > Sun Microsystems <najmi@east.sun.com> > > Java Software HTML Mail > > 1 Network Drive, MS BUR02-302 Fax: 781-442-1610 > > Burlington Work: 781-442-0703 > > MA > > 01803-0902 > > USA > > Additional Information: > > Last Name Najmi > > First Name Farrukh > > Version 2.1 > > -- > _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Christopher Ferris - Enterprise Architect > _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063 > _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ Sun Microsystems, Mailstop: UBUR03-313 > _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903
begin:vcard n:Najmi;Farrukh tel;fax:781-442-1610 tel;work:781-442-0703 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:www.sun.com org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software adr:;;1 Network Drive, MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA version:2.1 email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com fn:Farrukh S. Najmi end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC