Re: Postponing or blocking message delivery from interceptor

2011-01-21 Thread Daniel Kulp
On Thursday 20 January 2011 5:51:27 pm Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > On 01/21/2011 10:57 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > On Thursday 20 January 2011 2:49:53 am Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > > > > .. > > > >> The WS-RM code does implement duplicate message checks if AtMostOnce is > >> specified (

Re: Postponing or blocking message delivery from interceptor

2011-01-20 Thread Dennis Sosnoski
Ah, I think I see how response handling is supposed to work in WS-RM. CreateSequence can optionally offer to create a separate sequence for the opposite direction. I'd say the offer should always be configured in policy when using a request-response MEP, and should always be accepted by the destina

Re: Postponing or blocking message delivery from interceptor

2011-01-20 Thread Dennis Sosnoski
On 01/21/2011 10:57 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > On Thursday 20 January 2011 2:49:53 am Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > > .. > >> The WS-RM code does implement duplicate message checks if AtMostOnce is >> specified (in org.apache.cxf.ws.rm.DestinationSequence), in which case >> it throws

Re: Postponing or blocking message delivery from interceptor

2011-01-20 Thread Daniel Kulp
On Thursday 20 January 2011 2:49:53 am Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > On 01/20/2011 08:19 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > On Wednesday 19 January 2011 5:24:58 am Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > >> ... > >> > >> In order to implement the receive handling, I need to be able to > >> short-circuit the processing of an

Re: Postponing or blocking message delivery from interceptor

2011-01-19 Thread Dennis Sosnoski
On 01/20/2011 08:19 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > On Wednesday 19 January 2011 5:24:58 am Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > >> ... >> >> In order to implement the receive handling, I need to be able to >> short-circuit the processing of an in-bound message in an interceptor so >> that no further processing is

Re: Postponing or blocking message delivery from interceptor

2011-01-19 Thread Daniel Kulp
On Wednesday 19 January 2011 5:24:58 am Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > I've verified that the current WS-RM code only implements transmit > handling (retry until acknowledged). A correct WS-RM implementation also > requires receive handling, to postpone the delivery of messages received > out of order wh

Postponing or blocking message delivery from interceptor

2011-01-19 Thread Dennis Sosnoski
I've verified that the current WS-RM code only implements transmit handling (retry until acknowledged). A correct WS-RM implementation also requires receive handling, to postpone the delivery of messages received out of order when InOrder delivery assurance is used, and to block the delivery of dup