cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Diephouse" <...@envoisolutions.com>
Subject Re: Understanding Partial Responses [Re: Identification of Partial Responses]
Date Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:41:13 GMT
On 1/10/07, Glynn, Eoghan <eoghan.glynn@iona.com> wrote:
>
>
> Essentially we took a view on how to plug a hole in the WS-RM spec. We
> did this in a way that other RM implementors (and contributors to the
> WS-RX spec) also had in mind. This approach happens to go against the
> chapter and verse of the WS-I Basic Profile (R2714), but it has been
> argued that BP was in error on this point.
> *snip*


And they ultimately decided against including such a feature inside the
spec.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/14147/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i012


That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't useful though. I've done some more in
depth poking around and it appears other people are doing it, so I believe
it is a justified feature. Also I've done some more research into how other
frameworks do this and have some findings, which I'll bring up in the
original identification thread.


>
> I don't think it would be a good idea to support a hodge-podge of WS-RM
> 1.0 and 1.1, for a number of reasons  ... the 1.1 namespaces are all
> different, 1.1 is based on a different version of WS-A, and 1.1 removes
> some features we support (e.g. the LastMessage marker).
>
> So I think we'd be much better off waiting for 1.1 to be finalized, then
> going for it in one fell swoop.


Shouldn't we be able to support both versions eventually?

- Dan

-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message