<hima> comments inline
Arvola Chan wrote:
In CPP/A 1.0, each CollaborationRole
has one or more ServiceBinding. Each ServiceBinding references a DeliveryChannel
and a Packaging. Each ServiceBinding can also have an arbitrary number
of Override elements. Each Override element specifies a DeliveryChannel
and a Packaging that should be used for a particular action. <element
name="ServiceBinding">
<complexType>
<sequence>
<element ref="tns:Service"/>
<element ref="tns:Override" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
<attribute name="channelId" use="required"
type="IDREF"/>
<attribute name="packageId" use="required"
type="IDREF"/>
</complexType>
<unique name="action.const">
<selector xpath=".//Override"/>
<field xpath="@action"/>
</unique>
</element> The DeliveryChannel
that is referenced by a ServiceBinding can be considered a default delivery
channel for the Service in question. In principle, it can be used for delivering
messages for all actions associated with the Service for which no explicit
Override element exists. I question if each ServiceBinding
should reference only a single Packaging element. Since every action message
may have its own schema and may have to be described by a separate Packaging
element, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a repeating group of Packaging
elements to be associated with a ServiceBinding element? Each action message
that can possibly be delivered via the default channel associated with
the ServiceBinding must be enumerated and its corresponding Packaging must
be identified.
<hima> This would align with the current wording in MS1.05 specification
that if a the reference element for the payload has a schema definition,
it SHOULD have the schema element and having each business documents schema
denoted in the CPA would be needed. I vote for this.
What would be the action that corresponds to a
business level Receipt Acknowledgment or Acceptance Acknowledgment signal?
When these messages are sent on their own (not piggybacked on response
messages), their corresponding action name will have to be used as keys
into the ServiceBinding for looking up the appropriate DeliveryChannel
and Packaging description. Should we simply refer to these actions as ReceiptAcknowledgment
and AcceptanceAcknowledgment?
<hima> Added this to action items in Service/Action issues list
This would be a BPSS interlock issue.
I also have another question regarding Packaging.
Consider the case of a business request message being delivered over a
synchronous delivery channel, and either a receipt acknowledgment or a
receipt acknowledgment exception signal may be returned? Should we have
a choice mechanism whereby a SimplePart can be declared to be an XML document
that conforms to one of several schemas (XSDs and DTDs)?
<hima> In case of a synch reply, would it be better if a composite
list would'nt have to be specified in the CPA to include the signals too.
Depending on the kind of connection, it would be implicit.
Thanks,-Arvola
|