iwasa wrote:
> Sunil and Tom,
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> With this modification the ReplyTo definition can be modified as
> > > >> follows:
> > > >>
> > > >> "
> > > >>
> > > > I'd also suggest to remove 'ReplyTo' as a sub-element of
> > > > <RM:ReliableMessage> and add it as an _attribute_ to
> > > > <RM:AckRequested> sub-element itself so that it won't accidently
> > > > be used if <RM:AckRequested> is not used/present.
> > >
> > > Not sure?
> >
> > Why? Do you see any problem with it being an attribute? I just
> > felt that it is less error-prone when it is an attribute of
> "AckRequested",
> > which is the only case it is used anyway.
>
> Agree with Sunil to move "ReplyTo" element to under "AckRequested".
> And it looks like you prefer to making "ReplyTo"
> an attribute of AckRequested, rather than making it sub-element of
> AckRequested. In that case are you proposing to have two attributes
> under "AckRequested" element as follows?
> - ackPattern attribute : Value is "Response", "CallBack", or "Poll"
> - replyTo attribute : Value is URL
>
Yes, the above is the one I proposed earlier. Infact, It should be okay
if ReplyTo is made a sub-element of ' AckRequested' element itself.
My main aim is to tie ReplyTo to AckRequested as that's the only
case it is used.
Whether it is an attribute or sub-element is secondary. Since ackPattern
was already an attribute, I preferred it as an attribute. Either both (ackPattern
and replyTo) should be attributes or sub-elements.
Thanks,
-Sunil
>
> I think this makes sense.
> If I understand wrong, please correct it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Iwasa
>
> >
> > >
