Sunil Kunisetty wrote:
>
> Jacques,
>
> Oracle will be supporting this proposal. However, I prefer that
> SequenceNumber
> be Optional rather than mandatory as you indicated in (P2). I
> understand that it will
> be difficult for schema validation, but I believe it will be much
> simpler and efficient
> for implementations.
>
> So essentially we should categorize all RM into 3 different
> categories based on
> the elements used in RM Headers:
>
> 1) Grouped and Ordered Messages: Group Id + Seq No. +
> Message Order
>
> Same Group Id, Different Seq No.
>
> 2) Grouped and Un-Ordered Messages: Group Id + Seq No.
>
> Same Group Id, Different Seq No.
>
> 3) Discrete & Independent RM Messages: Group Id
>
> We could then use the SequenceNumber sub-element has the toggle
> switch to
> distinguish Grouped Un-ordered with Discrete & Independent messages. An
> implementation could then use 3 different Hash Tables to store the
> IDs, thus
> making DE much more efficient.
>
Do you mean one separate hash table for eacy of the three categories of
message processing in the
above list?
> This will be better than having this element and requiring the value
> to be '0' for
> un-ordered grouped messages.
>
> We should strongly recommend in our Spec. that applications such use
> grouped ordered or un-ordered messages as much as possible.
>
> Comments?
>
> -Sunil
>
>
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt email: ;
Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
