[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Supporting Signals in BTAs
> Webber: I've upgraded the model and added signals - and used the two > additional fields we discussed adding. > > <Signals> > <Signal name="ReceiptAck" nameID="ReceiptAck2.7" > specificationLocation="none" specificationID="BPSS-2.7" > specificationType="" signalPurpose="signal" signalType="success"/> > <Signal name="AcceptanceAck" nameID="AcceptanceAck2.8" > specificationLocation="none" specificationID="BPSS-2.8" > specificationType="" signalPurpose="signal" signalType="success"/> > > <Signal name="DefaultContext" nameID="DefaultContext2.6" > specificationLocation="none" specificationID="BPSS-2.6" > specificationType="ebContext" signalPurpose="setContext" > signalType="context"/> > </Signals> mm1: David, the editors' team had some significant discussion around signals in the F2F last week. We've solidified a Specification element that we can use in multiple places [1]. The use of a signal purpose will be deferred until v3.0 as we need more information on its need and use. The signalType will be added with an enumeration list I believe. [1] Schema is being finalized for this and many changes. > This all went very smoothly. Notice that the signal is not being > included in the > BinaryCollaboration details - as agreed - its an implied interaction > only - > but the signal is being written out into the BusinessTransaction > definition, > as a RespondingBusinessActivity - > > <DocumentEnvelope > businessDocument="ReceiptAck" > nameID="ReceiptAck-01" > isPositiveResponse="false" /> > > Since its a signal - the message handling should default to the CPA > definition > for signal handling - so that all works too. mm1: I don't have all the schema changes but will have a full report on the progress last week in Monday's call. What I can say, however, is we are leaning towards as much explicitness as possible for clarity and implementer ease. I am not certain what you have done here so we can discuss Monday. A Receipt Ack is not a response David. > I think this is complete and works all very nicely - I have no issues > here to report. > > Are there any other questions? If not - I believe we can sign-off on > the signal > items and declare victory. > > Thanks, DW
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]