Tom Rutt wrote:
> 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.
I mistyped here. What I meant to say is we have to justify the need
for a unique message ID for the reply, unless itself is piggybacking a
reliable message in the return direction. I cannot come up with a
reason. The messageID for the request serves for all logging purposes.
>
>
> 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
