Tom Rutt wrote:
> 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?
Yes. One implementation of RMP could use 3 different hash tables for
better DE results. But then again it's an implementation issue which
we can't mandate in the spec.
>
>
> > 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
