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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 10 January 2007 22:41 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Understanding Partial Responses [Re: > Identification of Partial Responses] > > On 1/10/07, Glynn, Eoghan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
