RE: Reliable messaging

"Damodaran, Suresh" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch
Message-ID <40AC2C8FB855D411AE0200D0B7458B2B07C5998B@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com>
+1, it can be easily proven. Have done it several years ago.
But, it doesn't mean there can't be useful but imperfect schemes that solve
this problem in some special cases...

Cheers,

-Suresh
Sterling Commerce   



-----Original Message-----
From: Francis McCabe [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 4:14 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: 'Christopher B Ferris'; Mark Baker; Burdett, David;
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Reliable messaging



Yes, the `distributed systems corollary' of the halting theorem might 
be phrased as: "you cannot distinguish a lazy node from a dead node"

Frank

On Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 01:29  PM, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
wrote:

> I know of mechanisms that, if successful, will assure the sender that 
> the message HAS been received.  I do not know of any mechanism that 
> will allow the sender to know that the message has NOT been received.  
> The ebXML spec most certainly does not.  So I believe that the word 
> "whether" below is inappropriate.
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:25 PM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: Burdett, David; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Reliable messaging
>
>
> #1 in my definition reads:
>
> the ability of a sender to be able to determine whether a given
> message has been received by its intended receiver ...
>
> It doesn't speak of a mechanism, but there are many means of achieving 
> this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christopher Ferris
> Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: [email protected]
> phone: +1 508 234 3624
>
> [email protected] wrote on 08/29/2002 04:01:41 PM:
>
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:48:41AM -0700, Burdett, David wrote:
> > > I like your definitions,  however, they do not address what I 
> think is the
> > > certainty that although you can be sure a message was received, 
> you can
> > > never be absolutely sure that it was not.
> >
> > How can you be sure that a message was received?  Because there's 
> always
> > a chance that the response to a message doesn't make it, and leaves 
> the
> > two parties out of synch (i.e. two army problem).
> >
> > MB
> > --
> > Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               [email protected]
> > http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
> >
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.