[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] FW: Differences between an operation and a BT
I am still working through the extensive message traffic on ebXML BP list last week. Sorry to be slow. I find JJ's reasons for not treating OperationActivity (or whatever we finally call it) as a specialization of BusinessTransaction persuasive. At the moment, I think the 2.1 extensions in the CPPA (to support WSDL and SOAP 1.1 & 1.2 header blocks) treat WS as another implementation option for transactions. One question I have is how CPPA should provide support for or align with OperationActivity? Should the alignment with other CPPA/Messaging concepts (like Service,Action) be maintained? CPPA really only needs this alignment if ebMS is used (because it supplies the values to be used in the ebMS header for Service, Action, and Role). But presumably, an OperationActivity would never (not usually?) be implemented via ebMS, would it? Also, I am assuming that OperationActivity "combines" in a choreography like a BTA or a CollaborationActivity (that is, it will be a "state" we can transition to or from.) Will it make sense to use the DocumentEnvelopeNotation? Will there be "statuses" from the state to check against @conditionGuard attributes? Also will there be a Role binding via the Performs construct (at least that is how I have been doing it in 2.x schema draft)? Given the very preliminary state of WS and ebXML integration, I definitely prefer introducing a construct with the least commitment possible until, for version 3.0, we can see how it makes sense to integrate these into combined business state alignment descriptions. Dale Moberg -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jeanjadu@Attachmate.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 8:29 AM To: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [ebxml-bp] FW: Differences between an operation and a BT Had some problem with email yesterday. -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Jacques Dubray Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 12:06 PM To: 'monica.martin@sun.com' Subject: FW: Differences between an operation and a BT Did you get this message? -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Jacques Dubray Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 9:37 AM To: Monica J. Martin Cc: ebXML BP; kpetrop@01P.gr Subject: Differences between an operation and a BT WS Collaboration Made of several operations without Made of several BT with an Explicit relationship to each other explicit relationship (chor) Does not require a BSI or Agreement Requires a BSI Mechanisms Requires "negotiated" agreements Operation BT Req, Response, Fault* Request,Response*, Fault* No state alignement protocol Business transaction protocol Directed (A->B) No direction specified (BTA) Looking at this set of properties it is legitimate to ask the question whether we want to make an operation invocation a BT (it clearly looks like a subset). However, it is not because we can do something that we should do something. This question is as legitimate (not more) to ask whether a CORBA call or an RPC should be part of a collaboration. I don't think I would find many people asking for invoking a method from a BPSS. The reason why this question is relevant is because, WS is an internet ready technology and many businesses may decide to expose a If we make an operation look like a BT we would a) bring confusion, "so why do I need all this stuff if an operation IS A business transaction". Transaction is about state alignment (not rollback/compensation - rollback/compensation is a convenience mechanism to serve state alignment). A web service operation does not give you any kind of state alignment guarantee. ebXML BPSS and the ebXML architecture has been carefully designed and tested to provide state alignment capabilities via the concept of signals. Let me know if you need an explanation on this (the short version is that in the WS, only the consumer of the service knows the outcome, that kind of works for one of services like "creditCheck" where the interaction does not depend on previous states being reached. Imagine a world where we carry out interactions without being sure of the past????). A web service operation by itself CANNOT guaranty state alignment in any situation. b) we will have to hack BPSS pretty much everywhere to explain that a operation BT does not work like a BT - cannot be used in any order (so we have to specify the roles somewhere) - cannot be changed via "substitution set mechanism" - cannot be augmented to use a business transaction protocol - use a different "CPP/A" mechanism - different exception mechanism (technical failure) -... Making an operation a BT will require that we annotate EVERY aspect of BPSS to specify how this works with the operation BT pattern. It will also limit our ability to use other WS stack spec as we see fit. I recommend that we keep operation and BT separate and create an operation activity which has its own behavior totally independent from the BT behavior. I recognize that this is a hybrid approach, but we are dealing with technologies that had and will have different paths. JJ- -----Original Message----- From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 9:04 AM To: Monica J. Martin Cc: ebXML BP; kpetrop@01P.gr Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Webber 5/23/2004: Laura Project Progress in Europe Monica, Thanks I'll contact Kostas direct and provide input back on what I find out. DW Quoting "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>: > David RR Webber wrote: > > > http://www.lauraproject.org/project's%20description.html > > <http://www.lauraproject.org/project%27s%20description.html> > > > > Does anyone have contact with this group? > > > > Would be great to get their input into our BPSS work. > > > > DW > > mm1: David, I had seen a post in November 2003 from Kostas Petropoulos > (kpetrop@01P.gr) on the ebxml-dev list. Your post reminded me today. > I've attached the relevant email about the project I had and also cc: > Kostas to respond on this project to set up B2B adaptive zones in > Greece, Germany, Bulgaria and Europe. We'll see what we can find out. > Can you take an action to follow this through? Thanks. > http://drrw.net
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]