Re: [ebxml-bp] State Alignment and Web Services

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Monica,

I implemented it because I thought we were all agreed
on the need for 'pending'.  Now noone wants to own
this - except perhaps Kenji is now saying "yes - and
some history - need for pending was also discovered
by RosettaNet in their exchanges".

I don't just sit around and make these things up
for the heck of it.  We discussed this for about
10 minutes on the call - and working around
the legally commitment issues - and the fact
that 'succeed / failure' were only options was
brought up as a big problem.

I guess this pending is pending - but I'm not sure
on what!!

Cheers, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
To: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: "Kenji Nagahashi" <nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com>; "ebXML BP"
<ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] State Alignment and Web Services


> David RR Webber wrote:
>
> >Kenji,
> >
> >Yes - the 'pending' is part of the BTA.   I guess in the
> >case of a distributor - it confirms that an attempt is
> >being made to find source(s) for product(s) requested.
> >
> >
> mm1: David, to date, there is no 'pending.'
>
> >In that sense its a binding attempt to provide that,
> >and as you say - the answer could be - 'no source found'.
> >
> mm1: No, read the resolution proposed for Issue 71, isLegallyBinding. It
> is all about intent (good faith effort).
>
>
>
>