[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] State Alignment and Web Services (session 2) Today!
Dear Monica and other ebBPers, I am sorry I was travelling on private business on Friday (had to pick my daughter up from a course) otherwise I was hoping to join you as a once off. It seems to me that in thinking about State Alignment you are liking the input from someone with a good knowledge of up to date transaction protocols. I am a poor shadow of that at present but I could have tried. Jacques (Durand) was close when he mentioned BTP in an email on this topic sometime ago - I was going to pick up on that but was too far behind with email to interject in a timely fashion. In general to achieve state alignment, and mutual assurance that you have achieved state alignment (or mutual knowledge of failure) you do need to use a transaction like protocol (such as BTP or WS-BA) or use something with the equivalent semantic and behaviour specification. So of course you can replicate a transaction protocol at the business application protocol layer, but as it is a common function independent of businesses semantics to me it makes better sense to use a common 'infrastructure' protocol for this purpose. Unless there have been significant changes that I am unaware of the BPSS BT is fine in my opinion as a business protocol with the receipt and acceptance acknowledgement signals (and exception signals) signalling the progress of the business interaction. However to quote David (Webber - or more likely mis-quote as I read and enjoyed the mail then deleted it) it only provides state alignment when the wind is calm and the waters smooth. It does not provide complete assurance. To provide state alignment and assurance of that alignment under system and communication failure conditions then you do need something like BTP or its equivalent. I hope to be able to read the notes of Fridays meeting but one further thought that you may or may not have covered. That is that there are two 'things' that need to be aligned. One is the corresponding business protocol state machines, which should be in allowed complimentary states at all times, or mis alignment detected and rectified. The other is the business data or business objects (such as order, invoice, patient record and so forth). This needs to be left in an aligned state at both sides. ebXML (and UN/CEFACT TMG RIP) came close to tackling this aspect head on with the work on Business Entities and Business Entity Types. As far as I know though this work floundered and is still in the 'floundered' state. I wonder if the ebBP group has any thoughts of taking up this effort in OASIS, or can give reasons why it is not required. (If this work was to be revived then the relationship to the WS-Resource Framework work would need to be worked out Best Regards Tony A M Fletcher Home: 35, Wimborne Avenue, IPSWICH IP3 8QW Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219 amfletcher@iee.org (also tony.fletcher@talk21.com & tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com) -----Original Message----- From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] Sent: 25 June 2004 16:04 To: ebXML BP Subject: [ebxml-bp] State Alignment and Web Services (session 2) Today! A reminder about the second session today: >State Alignment and Web Services (session 2) has been added by Monica >Martin (monica.martin@sun.com). >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]