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

Well, again, I think it depends upon scope, and I was just trying to point out a very simple starting point to provide some level of reliability.  I realize whatever we do has to be within a broader context, so it needs to be extensible, yes.  What I want to avoid is trying to solve the whole problem up front.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mahan Michael (NRC/Boston) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:29 PM
To: Newcomer, Eric; Baker, Mark
Cc: David Orchard; [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was RE:
Agendafor 5 December WSA telcon)


Hi Eric,


On 12/9/02 12:36 AM, "ext Newcomer, Eric" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> <mark:messageid>http://foofoo.org/mid/232394820480234</mark:messageid>
> <mark:qos>http://ackack.org/qos/ack</mark:qos>
> 
> But I'd simplify it further to just send a plain "ack" for a message with a
> given unique ID. In that context the rest of the "qos" namespace URI would not
> really be needed but I agree with your idea or assumption that whatever we do
> should be extensible and flexible.  But actually a simple ack is what I'd like
> us to focus on for the initial proposal, so perhaps an even simpler example
> would be better:
> 
> <mark:ack>http://ackack.org/ack</mark:ack>
> 

While agreeing that this is simplier, isn't reliability a qos feature and
should/could be grounded or encapsulated as such?

Mike Mahan, Nokia