Jacques Durand wrote:
> Could someone remind me why we need an RM:MessageHeader element for
> Ack and Fault messages?
> I could not justify this to our implementor Hamid.
> Such headers could not possibly have a meaning for these signals, as
> they would have to fully relate to a business response that we want to
> be reliable, in case
> of request-response pattern, or more generally in case these signals
> piggy-back on business messages.
>
> Jacques
>
>
If we do not have a business reason to give the response its own
identity for WS-relibability protocol, then
we should do that.
I do not see any requirement in our Requirements document which warrants
the Message header for a reply which
is not itself a reliable message.
In fact, this would clarify that a reliable message is one which has a
rm:messageHeader.
The response is not a reliable mesage, unless it is using piggybacking.
Lets open a new issue on this one.
Tom Rutt
WSRM Chair
--
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt email: ;
Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
