OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

Re: [ebxml-msg] Re: Comments on the 1.09 about ConversationId

  • 1.  Re: [ebxml-msg] Re: Comments on the 1.09 about ConversationId

    Posted 12-04-2001 17:53
    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.
    > 
    >