RE: [wsrm] Discussion on Issues Rel 108 and 115

From
Jacques Durand <>
Date
2004-02-14T04:18:02+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [wsrm] Discussion on Issues Rel 108 and 115
Title: RE: [wsrm] Discussion on Issues Rel 108 and 115

>The major problem with this is the requirmenet for the receiver to remember which fault >codes arose for each non-delivered message.

Yes, I would think twice before making this a REQUIRED feature... 

There is also a limit for how many delivered messages a "poll" can acknowledge: 

Normally, a receiver can rely on the presence of stored message IDs,

to know which messages have been delivered.

But when these messages expire, the receiver may get rid of these IDs,

as no duplicate elimination will be needed anymore.

(except for groups, where efficient interval representation does not

require removing expired IDs.)

So, unless Poll requests can limit their responses to non-expired

messages, I see more headache in remembering not just the Faulted messages, 

but all the delivered ones as well...

Jacques

-----Original Message-----

From: Tom Rutt [mailto:]

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 5:37 PM

To: wsrm

Subject: [wsrm] Discussion on Issues Rel 108 and 115

These issues deal with the semantics of poll response for messages which 

were not delivered due to a fault

Current semantics of returning fault are as follows:

For resposne reply pattern a single message fault is returned in the 

response to the reliable request.

For callback reply pattern, a single message fault is returned in the 

callback containing the Fault element.

It is not clearly stated, but the receving RMP could batch a bunch of 

acks in a single callback message, but there is not way to do this

for faults.

Currently there is not way to indicate in a response to a poll that a 

message was not delivered due to  a fault.  The response to the

poll merely lists all message IDs in the poll range which were 

delivered.  Messages not in that list may be held, or may have been not

delivered due to a fault condition.

A fault element in a response to a poll, only indicates a problem wiht 

the poll request itself.  It cannot be used to indicate a fault on a prior

reliable messasge request.

The current Response syntax is as follows:

<!--

 Response Header Type and it's elements 

  -->

- <#> <xsd:complexType name="*ResponseType*">

- <#> <xsd:complexContent>

- <#> <xsd:extension base="*wsrm:RmBaseType*">

- <#>       <xsd:sequence>

              <xsd:element name="*RefToGroupId*" 

type="*wsrm:ResponseElementType*" maxOccurs="*unbounded*" />

     </xsd:sequence>

  </xsd:extension>

 </xsd:complexContent>

</xsd:complexType>

We could add a new element to the responst type as follows

<xsd:complexType name="*ResponseType*">

- <#> <xsd:complexContent>

- <#> <xsd:extension base="*wsrm:RmBaseType*">

- <#>       <xsd:sequence>

              <xsd:element name="*RefToGroupId*" 

type="*wsrm:ResponseElementType*" maxOccurs="*unbounded*" />

           <xsd:element name="*RefToFaults*" type="*wsrm:FaultsRefType*" 

maxOccurs="*unbounded*" />

     </xsd:sequence>

  </xsd:extension>

 </xsd:complexContent>

</xsd:complexType>

<xsd:complexType name="*FaultsRefType*">

- <#> <xsd:complexContent>

- <#>       <xsd:sequence>       

               <xsd:element name="*FaultCode*" type="xsd:string" 

maxOccurs="*1*" />

              <xsd:element name="*RefToGroupId*" 

type="*wsrm:ResponseElementType*" maxOccurs="*unbounded*" />

    </xsd:sequence>

</xsd:complexContent>

</xsd:complexType>            

An example of the structure of the RefToFaults element (repeated here 

twice) would be as follows

   <RefToFaults>

         <FaultCode>  processingError </FaultCode>

          <RefToGroupID> ... list of message ids in group a which had processing error fault ... </RefToGroupID>

           <RefToGroupID> ... list of message ids , in group b which had processing error fault ... </RefToGroupID>

    </RefToFaults>

   <RefToFaults>

         <FaultCode>  BadHeader </FaultCode>

          <RefToGroupID ... list of message ids  in group a which had Bad header fault ... </RefToGroupID>

    </RefToFaults>

The major problem with this is the requirmenet for the receiver to remember which fault codes arose for each non-delivered message.

However, it would give full functionality to the poll response.

Tom Rutt

-- 

----------------------------------------------------

Tom Rutt                email: ; 

Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.