RE: [ebxml-bp] Status of MSH configuration by CPA and MSH API]

["James Wowchuk" <james.wowchuk@vcs.com.au>]

Echoing Steve's comments, I too have found using the CPA to be a key
value.  After all, the MSH will need configuration of some sort, and the
CPA provides more than necessary.  It is a single repository of
security, authenticity, reliability, transactional messaging control and
layered functionality.  Of special benefit is that it need not be
restricted to ebXML, as other adapter bindings may be used as well.

That's not to say it is a perfect datastructure, nor that a consistent
API would not make it easier to work with.  There is enormous scope to
improve, but as is it is significantly more co-ordinated and
comprehensive than all the WS-* proposals being tacked on to
Web-services.

So while an MSH may not need a CPA (which reflects well on the designers
of the MSH), it certainly benefits from having the ability to use it
when it exists.

We currently use a full CPA implementation, but not the CPP - we
generate the agreement from other components.

In answer to Sacha's original question, however, we too have to link to
what he refers to as the Business Service Interface (BSI) but get little
value from the CPA in this regard - simply a pointer.  The development
of a standard API is something that maybe should have been done earlier
- for us it would be a bolt-on of little value.

Jim Wowchuk                       jim@vcs.com.au
Vanguard Computer Services P/L
 _--_|\                           Post:  PO Box 18
/      \                                 North Ryde NSW 1670
\_.--._/ <---Sydney NSW           Phone: +61 (2) 9888-9688
      v      Australia            Fax:   +61 (2) 9888-3056


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Capell [mailto:steve.capell@redwahoo.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, 25 July 2004 3:55 PM
> To: 'Monica J. Martin'; 'ebXML BP'
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] [Fwd: [ebxml-msg] Status of MSH 
> configuration by CPA and MSH API]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For my 20c, the automated configuration of an ebXML MSH from 
> a CPA is one of the key values of the the whole ebXML 
> architecture and so should remain a part of any future specs. 
>  The only little issue is that this pre-supposes that you 
> have an easy way to get a CPA in the first place.  After some 
> "experiments" we believe that the best route to a CPA is to 
> generate partner specific deployment CPA's from "abstract" 
> template CPAs that are, in turn, generated from UMM (FSV) 
> model data.  In this way we are pretty much able to automate 
> the entire deployment from model data.
> 
> Steve Capell
> Red Wahoo Pty Ltd
> +61 410 437854
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2004 2:54 AM
> To: ebXML BP
> Subject: [ebxml-bp] [Fwd: [ebxml-msg] Status of MSH 
> configuration by CPA and MSH API]
> 
> FYI: Questions to ebMS team, good insight Sacha.
> 
> Sacha Schlegel wrote:
> 
> >Hi ebXML Messaging Team
> >
> >I was wondering what the status of the following two questions are:
> >
> >a) Is it implicit that a MSH could/should be configured with 
> a CPA? Do 
> >you push this in the ebMS specification 3.0? Do you have real world 
> >experience how todays MSH's are configured? eg. Hermes from 
> >www.freebxml.org uses a properties.xml file or similar but no CPA.
> >
> >b) Will you provide an API of the MSH? Without practical 
> experience I 
> >would think that current ebMS systems communicate straight with the 
> >backend applications. As I am interested in an ebXML 
> Business Service 
> >Interface (BSI) which executes (or monitors) a BPSS I am 
> wondering of a 
> >standardiesd interface between BSI and MSH. In the sense 
> that I could 
> >easily exchange an MSH. Any attempts to specify this in version 3.0?
> >
> >Kind regards
> >
> >Sacha Schlegel
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>