[wsf-c-dev] [wsf-php] RM API

[nandika]

Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
> nandika wrote:
>> Idea was to support  one way messaging with RM 1.0.
> Why not support that with RM 1.1 as well? What is the advantage of 
> using 1.0 to support oneway.
> It sounds odd to say "we support one way with RM 1.0 and two way with 
> RM 1.1". Comparatively, it is better to say that we support RM 1.1.
>
yes. we support one way and two way with RM 1.1 and also one way with RM 
1.0.
If there is not much advantage of having only one way with RM 1.0 , then 
we can drop it and say we support RM 1.1.
>>>>
>>>> In addition , user should have specified required addressing 
>>>> options for RM to be enabled.
>>> What addressing stuff are required? Can we enable those by default 
>>> if RM is in use?
>> For addressing, we need       Addressing Endpoint,
>>       Addressing Action.
>>       replyTo  Endpoint reference with wsa anonymous URI.
>>
>> Enabling Addressing can be done. but still user should specify the 
>> 'To' Endpoint and Action.
>> But I think we should expect from the user to know that , addressing 
>> should be enabled for RM
>> to work.
> Yes we can document so. But user would not have to give useWSA option 
> if Rm is already in use.
>>> "offer" does not indicate that is it talking about  "response 
>>> sequence", shall we use "response_sequence" instead?
>> Offer is the word used in the specification, So I selected that.
> But that is too generic. Most PHP users would never even have a look 
> at the speck I suppose. So it better be a meaningful name here :)
sure. then we shall go for "rm_response sequence".


Regards,
Nandika