[graap-wg] proposal: stateful async agreement

[Karl Czajkowski]

On Mar 22, Toshiyuki Nakata loaded a tape reading:
> Sorry to ask many snippets of questions rather than chunk them to gether.
> 
> If an initiator issed five different createPendingAgreement operations,
> May I understand that it is the initiator's responsibility to create
> 5 different initiatorAcceptance EPR so that the response might be
> discriminated properly?
> 

Yes, that is the idea... just like with the deliverNotification
pattern in WS-BaseNotification.

There is nothing particularly expensive about creating EPRs, e.g. new
addressable resources.  The alternative goes right back into the
explicit correlation ID mess, which has all the same requirements for
initiators keeping track of IDs and you still have to pass an EPR
too. It hurts my brain to think about <EPR, ID> pairs for addressing. :-)

Oh, I see your other email about using the Agreement EPR as a
correlation ID.  I think that is about the only way to upset the WSRF
and anti-WSRF folks equally... ;-) I think EPRs should only be passed
around when there is an expectation that a recipient will eventually
invoke operations on it.


karl

-- 
Karl Czajkowski
karlcz at univa.com