Some comments below, MWS:
Regards,
Marty
*************************************************************************************
Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************
David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 12/05/2001 09:59:17 AM
To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Christopher Ferris
<chris.ferris@sun.com>
cc: Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Re: Comments on the 1.09 about ConversationId
Shimamura-san's modification of Marty's words (edited version):
When messageOrderSemantics is set to "Guaranteed", the Receiving MSH
shall preserve in persistent storage all required SOAP Header
information, including SequenceNumber, needed to keep the
Message Order semantics of the last message in the conversation
sent in order to the application until either a subsequent
in-order message arrives or until the conversation ends
(no matter how long the conversation exists).
The Receiving MSH shall preserve in persistent storage the
ConversationId of an in-progress conversation until that conversation
ends (no matter how long the conversation exists).
MWS: I still think that a non-normative reminder is needed that these
holding
times might exceed the value of persistDuration
Does this meet everyone's requirements? I think we will get some flack
since
this guarantees slow accumulation of old ConversationIds in persistent
Storage.
MWS: You can't avoid accumulating old conversationIds since a conversation
can last a long time. The conversationIds will eventually be purged as
each
conversation ends. A never-ending conversation will only contribute one
conversationId, so it shouldn't be a big deal.
In the second paragraph, do we need to say Conversations with
messageOrderSemantics set to "Guaranteed"?
Do we need messageOrderSemantics? If MessageOrder is present, why would
messageOrderSemantics ever be "NotGuaranteed"? The problem is MessageOrder
tied
to ConversationId. MessageOrder is a very time limited situation while
ConversationId can be unlimited -- not a good match.
MWS: As long as the sequencing is within a conversation, that's the way it
is.
If you try to do message ordering over the entire stream, you need sequence
numbers across the entire stream and you are spinning your wheels ordering
message that have no functional time relationship to each other.
Regards,
David.