RE: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was RE: Agenda for 5 December WSA telcon)

Seems like that there are actually a couple things one would want:

1. In cases where an underlying protocol does not support reliable
messaging, then a layer on top, such as soap header blocks, would provide
reliable messaging.
2. Use of Web Service abstract feature to support mapping a "reliability"
feature to various soap features, protocols, message exchange patterns.

Cheers,
Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:10 AM
> To: Sandeep Kumar; Mark Baker; David Orchard
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was
> RE: Agenda
> for 5 December WSA telcon)
>
>
> WSA is protocol independent.
>
> I'd like to be able to support identical reliability metrics
> regardless of
> the underlying transfer protocol.
>
> Anne
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On
> > Behalf Of Sandeep Kumar
> > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 1:50 PM
> > To: Mark Baker; David Orchard
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing?
> (was RE: Agenda
> > for 5 December WSA telcon)
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark,
> > Could you elaborate as to why you would be against HTTPR?
> > Thanks,
> > Sandeep
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On
> > Behalf Of Mark Baker
> > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:52 AM
> > To: David Orchard
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing?
> (was RE: Agenda
> > for 5 December WSA telcon)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:41:23AM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> > > I think that a simple acknowledgement protocol in soap
> headers would be
> > very
> > > useful and hit an 80/20 point.  We've consistently heard
> from customers
> > and
> > > partners that reliable messaging is very important to them.  I
> > support the
> > > discussion and architectural description of reliable
> messaging in this
> > > forum.
> >
> > I agree that would be useful, but I think it's a long way
> from an 80/20
> > solution.
> >
> > > And saying that reliable messaging protocols don't make
> sense is akin to
> > > saying that we don't need tcp as ip already exists.
> >
> > Maybe I wasn't clear.  I'm for "reliable messaging
> protocols" if they're
> > application layer extensions.  I'm (generally) against them
> if they're
> > transport protocols (like HTTPR).
> >
> > MB
> > --
> > Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
http://www.markbaker.ca
> Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
>