[ebxml-bp] State Alignment and Web Services - Need feedback!

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

David RR Webber wrote:

>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
>  
>
mm1: David, I went back to the notes from the state alignment, special 
sessions. Here is what I found:

    * On 18 July 2004, we were discussing state alignment and late
      acceptance:    ............
          o Tell: For contract formation, the possibility exists to
            actually do late acceptance even when a timeout occurs.......
          o Moberg: What about customization of UBAC conventions or
            context, and the need to build a state alignment model? Tell
            could put variability in signal
            that could affect state alignment. In other economies, you
            may have different criteria.
          o Webber: On the late acceptance, you have a 'pending' action.
            If you have a late acceptance received, you have to, at
            business transaction level, allow a restart.......
          o Yunker: A transaction has the capability to accommodate a
            long-running response. It may not want to specify use. If
            sync, the acceptance may be included in the response. Keep
            signals as enforceable. .....

In looking at Kenji's comments (Kenji, continue to comment please), he 
is talking about multiple responses for RosettaNet when, for example, a 
party can only partially fulfill on an order.  Isn't this a case when 
the endsWhen could apply? I know we discussed too, such as in CPPA 
negotiation, that multiple responses MAY apply.

Waiting for feedback folks (even though it is summer and we all want to 
be outside!). Thanks.