Subject: Correspondence between requests and replies in messages

From: "Paul Long" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:19:56 -0500

Do transaction replies have to be placed in a message the same way as the
corresponding requests? I can't find anything in the standard that addresses
this. There are two interesting scenarios here. First, if a message contains
more than one transaction request, must the replies be contained within a
single message, as in the following?

A, B, C ->
<- A', B', C'

Or could they be returned in multiple messages, like so?

A, B, C ->
<- A', B'
<- C'

Secondly, can a message contain replies to requests contained in more than
one message, as in the following?

A ->
B ->
<- A', B'

I guess what it comes down to is this: Is a message merely a transport
mechanism that otherwise has no relevance to transactions? If this is true,
Nagle's algorithm could be used for transmitting replies within messages,
correct? And if it is also true that requests, replies, pendings, and
response-acks may be mixed in any combination within a message (haven't seen
a response to my query about that yet), Nagle's algorithm could also be used
for transmitting all of these and not just replies. Comments? Answers?

Paul Long
ipDialog, Inc.

---

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:42:24 -0400

There is no requirement to structure transaction replies in messages
in any way related to the structure of transaction requests.

Among other things, transactions can be executed in any order, so you
may HAVE to send a message that has transactions packed differently.

So, yes Nagel could be your friend.  I don't know why we didn't make it
be thus.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Long [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 3:20 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Correspondence between requests and replies in messages
> 
>