[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Are signals meaningful in case syncReplyMode is not set to none?
Whether response for a business process is to be
returned synchronously is specified in the CPA rather than in the business
process specification itself. This may lead to inconsistent specifications that
can be rather meaningless.
Consider the case of a business process that calls
for the use of both receipt acknowledgement and acceptance acknowledgement for
the request activity. Let's say their corresponding timeouts are 5 minutes and
10 minutes, and the time to perform is 30 minutes. Now suppose the CPA
specifies syncReplyMode = signalsAndResponse, does it mean that both the signals
and the response have to be returned within 5 minutes? If not, isn't the
requesting party supposed to consider the transaction null and void due to not
getting the receipt acknowledgement in time?
If the purpose of the receipt acknowledgement is to
indicate that the request message has passed the intelligible check, and the
purpose of the acceptance acknowledgement is to indicate that the request
message has passed additional business rules validation, there isn't much of a
point to return these signals along with the response synchronously (being
packaged into the same ebXML message). The fact that the response is returned
implies that both forms of validation have passed. Batching these signals with
the response essentially make them redundant and worthless.
Among RosettaNet PIPs, 2A9 (Query Electronic
Components Technical Information) is the only one that allows both synchronous
and asynchronous response. In the case of synchronous response, time to perform
is 5 minutes. For asynchronous response, time to perform is 24 hours. It does
not seem possible to model PIP 2A9 using BPSS and CPP/A as a single business
process specification. Only a single time to perform can be specified at the
BPSS level. There is no mechanism at the CPP/A level to override the time to
perform parameter.
In fact, I think it will be useful if time to
acknowledge receipt, time to acknowledge acceptance, and time to perform for a
business process specification can all be overridden at the CPP/A level to suit
the performance requirements between the two trading partners.
-Arvola
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC