Hi Sanjiva, If this problem can be fixed in the Sandesha layer that will be better than the current fix. I will revert the changes.
Cheers Brian DePradine Web Services Development IBM Hursley External +44 (0) 1962 816319 Internal 246319 If you can't find the time to do it right the first time, where will you find the time to do it again? Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/03/2007 02:59:15: > Brian De Pradine wrote: > > > > In this scenario the server sends a response message to the client. The > > client then tries to send an acknowledgement to the server, but the > > acknowledgement gets lost, for whatever reason. This means that the > > WS-RM layer, in the server, will eventually time-out and send the > > response message again. This time the client should send an > > acknowledgement to cover both the original and the duplicate response > > messages. > > > > This scenario is broken because the duplicate response never makes it to > > the WS-RM layer on the client side, because the > > AddressingBasedDispatcher recognises it as a duplicate and throws an > > exception instead. This means that the WS-RM layer never gets driven to > > send the second acknowledgement. The result is that the server will > > simply keep sending duplicate responses forever (almost)! > > > > In order to get this scenario to work the AddressingBasedDispatcher will > > need to dispatch any duplicate messages as normal, instead of deciding > > that they are 'bad' and throwing an exception. This will allow WS-RM to > > be easily added into the picture at any time. This also means that if > > there is no WS-RM engaged then a service will potentially be driven more > > than once if there are duplicate messages (created by some other means). > > This shouldn't be a problem, however, because web services are meant to > > be stateless entities anyway :-) If you do happen to have a web service > > that is not stateless then you will need to engage WS-RM to ensure that > > it is not driven by duplicates. > > OK I understand the scenario but I'm -1 on this because it breaks normal > users. You can't say that Web services are stateless and therefore its ok > to just let messages get delivered repeatedly violating our MEP concept! > > RM is a lower level thing than MEPS- its infrastructural. The MEP should > not be marked complete if the message hasn't been received to the > satisfaction of the lower level. > > If what Chamikara suggests will fix this for RM that's great but no matter > what this change is not acceptable because its breaking the definition of > a MEP. Think of a TCP analogy: TCP users a protocol similar to RM to > resend packets. Anyone who implements something like HTTP over TCP doesn't > need to be concerned with the response being delivered twice!! > > Sanjiva. > -- > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/ > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/ > Director; Open Source Initiative; http://www.opensource.org/ > Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ > Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU