right now, the spec suggests #1 which is that pd is the
minimum length of time that a party will commit to
preserving a message (or its relevant artifacts) in
persistent store for purposes of filtering duplicate
messages.
Cheers,
Chris
Martin W Sachs wrote:
> One of these possibilities:
>
> 1. If the MSG spec states that persistDuration is a minimum length of time,
> then all you need is to add words to the MSG spec conveying additional
> rules when message ordering is in effect.
>
> 2. If the MSG spec states that messages that live until persistDuration
> MUST be discarded right away, then we probably need additional text in both
> the MSG and the CPA spec.
>
> 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 12/04/2001 02:39:43 PM
>
> To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc: Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Re: Comments on the 1.09 about ConversationId
>
>
>
> Yes Marty, absolutely. I think there are potential problems (discussed
> below)
> which make MessageOrder quite fragile. I am shuddering over the thought of
> changing the persistDuration rules depending upon whether or not
> MessageOrder is
> present (wouldn't this constitute a CPA override!).
>
> I still like your other solution.
>
> Regards,
>
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group.
>
>