Re: MAJOR TECNICAL comments on v0.98

[SHIMAMURA Masayoshi <shima.masa@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Mr. Christopher Ferris, 

Let me confirm your idea. You mean that

    - When OnceAndOnlyOnce is specified and messageOrderSemantics is set
      to "Guaranteed", SequenceNumber MUST be present. In this case,
      receiving MSH MUST guarantee message order.
    - When OnceAndOnlyOnce is specified and messageOrderSemantics is set
      to "NotGuaranteed", SequenceNumber MAY be present. In this case,
      receiving Application MAY guarantee message order by itself using
      SequenceNumber.
    - When OnceAndOnlyOnce is specified and messageOrderSemantics is not
      specified, SequenceNumber MAY be present. In this case, 
      receiving Application MAY guarantee message order by itself using
      SequenceNumber.

Is that correct?

Regards,

--
SHIMAMURA Masayoshi <shima.masa@jp.fujitsu.com>
TEL:+81-45-476-4590(ext.7128-4241)  FAX:+81-45-476-4726(ext.7128-6783)
Planning Dep., Strategic Planning Div., Software Group, FUJITSU LIMITED


On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:52:43 -0500
christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> wrote:
> Shimamura-san,
> 
> No, it MAY be present ONLY when OnceAndOnlyOnce is
> specified, not always present. What this means is
> that SequenceNumber MAY be used to effect RM (recipient
> MSH uses it to determine if all messages have been
> received in window) without requiring the receiving
> MSH to impose ordering of delivery to "application"
> unless messageOrderSemantics is set to "Guaranteed".
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> SHIMAMURA Masayoshi wrote:
> > 
> > Mr. Christopher Ferris,
> > 
> > On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:03:03 -0500
> > christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > MAJOR TECHNICAL
> > >
> > > section 8.5.8
> > >
> > > 1 - line 574 - Requiring that SequenceNumber ONLY be present with
> > >       OnceAndOnlyOnce and Guaranteed seems to me to be a limitation
> > >       that could constrain an implementation from using SequenceNumber
> > >       as a means of enforcing RM when the SequenceNumber is
> > >       applied by the MSH and NOT by the Application (From Party).
> > >
> > >       I would much prefer that SequenceNumber ONLY be present
> > >       when OnceAndOnlyOnce is specified, and that the semantics
> > >       of messageOrderSemantics MAY be used to instruct the receiving
> > >       MSH to deliver the messages in the order in which the Application
> > >       determines by virtue of the SequenceNumber.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if I understand your suggestion correctly. Do you mean
> > following?
> > 
> >     - When BestEffort is specified, SequenceNumber is never present
> >     - When OnceAndOnlyOnce is specified, SequenceNumber is *always*
> >       present, even if messageOrderSemantics is not specified
> > 
> > If so, I agree to this change.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > --
> > SHIMAMURA Masayoshi <shima.masa@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > TEL:+81-45-476-4590(ext.7128-4241)  FAX:+81-45-476-4726(ext.7128-6783)
> > Planning Dep., Strategic Planning Div., Software Group, FUJITSU LIMITED
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org