Then it should only be necessary to add to the MSG spec words that say:
The MSH shall preserve in persistent storage the last message in the
conversation that was sent in order to the application until either a
subseqent in-order message arrives or until the conversation ends
(regardless of how long that takes). These words probably should be
modified if preserving some header information is all that is needed.
The MSH shall preserve in persistent storage the conversationId of an
in-progress conversation until that conversation ends (no matter how
long that takes).
No change is needed to the CPPA spec unless it now does not say that
persistDuration is the mininum length of time... (see Chris' words below).
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
*************************************************************************************
Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com> on 12/04/2001 05:46:11 PM
To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>, Dan Weinreb
<dlw@exceloncorp.com>, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Re: Comments on the 1.09 about ConversationId
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.
>
>