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 10:17
    +1
    
    Martin W Sachs wrote:
    
    > Still not true!
    > 
    > If the MSH bases routing decisions on conversationId, it must hold the
    > conversationId until it is told by software/middleware that the
    > conversation is ended; forever if necessary. If it does not hold onto the
    > conversationId, it will not be able to correctly process messages for the
    > same conversation that arrive after it purges the conversationId from its
    > persistent store.
    > 
    > This will really work much better if the MSH gets out of this business and
    > leaves it to the layer of middleware that manages conversation.
    > 
    > 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 12/03/2001 09:47:54 PM
    > 
    > To:    Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
    > cc:    SHIMAMURA Masayoshi <shima.masa@jp.fujitsu.com>, Dan Weinreb
    >        <dlw@exceloncorp.com>, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
    > Subject:    RE: [ebxml-msg] Re: Comments on the 1.09 about ConversationId
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > I'm sorry, I think I stirred a hornet's nest.
    > 
    > I do not mean that a Conversation ends with persistDuration.  I only meant
    > the
    > ConversationID need not be stored (for Message Order) if there are no
    > persisted
    > messages for that ConversationId.  The Conversation may go on indefinitely.
    > 
    > Sorry for the confusion,
    > 
    > David.
    > 
    >