RE: [ebxml-msg] Message delivery to non-adressable endpoints.

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















ebxml-msg message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Message delivery to non-adressable endpoints.




From: "Durand, Jacques R." <>
To: "Dale Moberg" <>,       <>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:51:09 -0700














Dale:



Some polling capability is considered in
WS-RX but no agreement yet between proposals. Some proposal is only within the
context of pulling for reliability purpose. Another is more general but
then  might as well (should?) be a separate specification, as argued now
in WS-RX. 

WS-add plays more or less of a role in
these proposals.



ebMS PullRequest is a very simple signal that
has not much additional semantics than a general polling signal – and sure
could be replaced. Now the question is how this kind of reuse plays in a
context with several SOAP nodes serialized on an endpoint, each possibly
holding some messages to be pulled (which is the case with ebMS, and its RM
module). 



The no-reuse solution means a distinct signal
is targeted to each node (e.g. pulling RM-specific messages separately from
ebMS messages). 

An all-reuse solution would use a single “generic”
poll signal – but we need to see how it will be controlled or targeted
separately for each spec / each node that is on its way (can the same signal be
targeted to more than 1 node so that the same underlying response  will piggy-back
all responses, does it only need to distinguish these, on the initiator side, which
SOAP node will initiate the polling? All? Just one?)  



So a reused-poll-signal  solution
sounds attractive but even if one is available today (open standard track, no IP
strings attached…) we need to define first how that is expected to work
in a multi-node env. It’s a bit of un-chartered territory here.



Meanwhile a step in a reuse direction
could be to not exclude the use of other poll signals, that could be later “profiled”
for ebMS. Of course either a conformance profile or a P-mode needs to nail down
the interop agreement on this.



Jacques











From: Dale Moberg
[mailto:]

Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:19
AM

To: 

Subject: [ebxml-msg] Message
delivery to non-adressable endpoints.





Hi



I am trying to catch up on reading WS-* groups that we are
utilizing in ebMS 3.0.



The WS-RX group is discussing how to make use of wsa to do
something that, at least to me, resembles poll/pull MEP.



Since one of our goals is to converge ebMS with new WS-*
standards-body-approved specifications for functionality fulfilling ebMS
requirements, I am wondering whether we should consider reusing wsa to do this
rather than make our own signal. The MPF identifier can be probably squeezed
into a field for metadata extensions.



 Before I contribute a public review remark on this,
does anyone on the TC have some comments on this?



Thanks

Dale Moberg


















[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]