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 Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:41:37 GMT
My point wasn't that we should use the MakeConnection from 1.1. It was that
instead of doing partial responses we *could* invent our own proprietary
operation which is similar to MakeConnection.

On 1/11/07, Glynn, Eoghan <eoghan.glynn@iona.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
> > Sent: 10 January 2007 22:41
> > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Understanding Partial Responses [Re:
> > Identification of Partial Responses]
> >
> > 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/Reliab
> > leMessagingIssues.xml#i012
>
> Again, note that the WS-RX TC decided against this approach for _1.1_.
>
> However that was no help to _1.0_ implementors such as ourselves, who
> still had to figure out a way of solving the problem within the
> framework of the 1.0 spec ... and in fact in many cases had already come
> to a de facto work-around before MakeConnection was even a twinkle in
> the spec writers' eye.
>
> > 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.
>
> Hallelujah! :)
>
> > 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?
>
> Sure, for reasons of backward compatability and wider interop ... just
> as we currently have multi-version support for WS-A.
>
> But my point was that we shouldn't support a hybrid version (i.e. mostly
> 1.0, but with MakeConnection thrown in).
>
> So a discrete choice would be made at runtime for each RMS->RMD
> interaction, either fully 1.0 or fully 1.1, but not a mixture of both.
>
> Cheers,
> Eoghan
>



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

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