> So from a server perspective, I guess the only option is whether to
> use a persistent or in-memory store. Maybe in the future we could
> think about relaying acks instead of storing messages (in other words
> we don't persistently store messages, instead we ack them when the
> target server has received them). So I think we can leave the server
> for the moment.
Hmm. Interesting point. But if the synapse server craches it will loose the
data of the sequence. Which may be needed to continue that sequence when the
system comes back up. So even though the in-memory server may be ecceptable
for now, i think the long term aim should be for a permanent storage based
one.
+1 for the persistent store.
As for the "relaying" model, you could imagine Synapse on a router
with a very small persistent store - just enough to persist the
sequence state but not the messages. In this case it might be bridging
from JMS to RM, and the RM agent would simply ack the message once the
JMS transactionally accepted it. If the Synapse server crashed, it
would reload the sequence state and carryon.
> But from the client perspective, there are a few options:
>
> 1) Do we want to make an offer?
Think this should be the default. To minimize the number of messages
transfered.
Yes, I think 2-way scenarios are more common than 1-way.
> 2) Do we want a separate listener - at the moment Sandesha doesn't
> support two-way RM with an anon endpoint for RM1.0, because its not
> really speced. Of course this is really an endpoint setting
> independent of RM.
>
> 3) Do we want to use RM1.0 or RM1.1
> 4) [Advanced] Do we want to set an internal SequenceKey? This could be
> used to ensure that for example different clients used different
> sequences.
We must. AFAIK different clients will be using the same Synapse client side
instance. Sandesha without knowing this may try to put messages from
different clients into the same sequence if they are targetted at the same
endpoint. So Synapse has to use sequenceKeys to make sure that the messages
from different clients go in different sequences.
Yes I agree.
But here is another nice scenario. I have two Synapses acting as
gateways. I just want one sequence holding them together and they
multiplex lots of traffic from each side over that sequence.
--
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
