[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] For CPPA Next-- FW: Transient Channel Requirementsfor CPP/CPA
You are correct. That is more or less what I said. Bear in mind that at
this point, I don't know of a standardized way to convey that return
address, so it would have to be provided in payload. The function of a
requester giving a return address to a provider is thus
application-specific. I am sure that the W3C WSDL team will eventually
solve this problem.
Regards,
Marty
*************************************************************************************
Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************
"Kit K. KO"
<kitko@vtc.edu.hk To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] For CPPA Next-- FW: Transient Channel Requirements for CPP/CPA
04/24/2002 10:11
AM
>service providers cannot initiate because WSDL does not provide a
>way of indicating an address that a service provider can send to since
>there is no service requester description.
Partially agree. Although all requests must be came from requesters
including request for notification; and within a request of
notification from requester to provider, the message should included
the address. And such service should be describe in WSDL.
What do you think?
Kit
==================================
Lecturer
Institute of Vocational Education
Tel: 852-97710172
==================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin W Sachs" <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:27 pm
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] For CPPA Next-- FW: Transient Channel
Requirements for CPP/CPA
>
> I agree with you but the main concern of the memo I was commenting
> on were
> initiate-only and response-only. It is also true that there can be a
> response to initiate-only, so initiate-only (in the memo) is really
> request-response. My comment about Web services was also correct
> in that
> today, service providers cannot initiate because WSDL does not
> provide a
> way of indicating an address that a service provider can send to since
> there is no service requester description.
>
> In WSDL 1.1, the actual names of the one-way transmission
> primitives are
> notification and acknowledgment. Nonetheless, as I said above, a
> serviceprovider cannot initiate a dialog since it doesn't know
> where to send the
> message. I hope that the W3C WSDL team will do something about that.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
>
>
>
************************************************************************
*************
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
>
>
************************************************************************
*************
>
>
>
>
> "Kit K. Ko"
>
>
> <kitko@vtc.edu.hk To: Martin W
> Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
>
> > cc: <ebxml-
> cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> Subject: Re:
> [ebxml-cppa] For CPPA Next-- FW: Transient Channel Requirements
> for CPP/CPA
> 04/23/2002 08:34
>
>
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >TERMINOLOGY:
>
> Martin,
> >In Web Services, at the current state of their art, a service
> rquestor is
> >initiate-only; a service provider is response-only.
>
> Actually, there are four primitives:
> 1/. Request-response
> 2/. Solicit-response
> 3/. Notification
> 4/. Acknoledgement
>
> 1/. & 2/ above can be modeled abstractly using two one-way messages.
>
> Kit
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin W Sachs" <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
> To: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
> Cc: "Cppa (E-mail)" <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] For CPPA Next-- FW: Transient Channel
> Requirements
> for CPP/CPA
>
>
> >
> > This is a good thing to add. It seems to be one step on the way
> to more
> > effective SME support. A few initial comments:
> >
> > TERMINOLOGY:
> >
> > In Web Services, at the current state of their art, a service
> rquestor is
> > initiate-only; a service provider is response-only.
> >
> > GENERAL USE CASE
> >
> > While the example is specific to an unsophisticated seller and a
> > sophisticated buyer, the specification should permit any role to
> be the
> one
> > that has the minimal infrastructure. We should probably allow
> for both
> > trading partners to have the minimal infrastructure. This might
> turn out
> > to be the harder one.
> >
> > DELIVERY CHANNEL
> >
> > The CPPA spec already has some words about dynamic selection of a
> delivery
> > channel and about getting the response address from the busines
> document.>
> > PROPOSED ATTRIBUTE: TRANSIENT CHANNEL
> >
> > These presumably go in the MessagingCharacteristics element and
> not as
> > stated in the proposal.
> >
> > OTHER IMPACT
> >
> > In particular, in the example cited, the Initiate-only side's
> receive> characteristics would omit the endpoint address. However
> (see below), I
> > believe that initiate-only side still has to have some receive-type
> > delivery channel definitions since the other side has to know what
> > transports and messaging characteristics to use.
> >
> > ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
> >
> > A party with minimal infrastructure would have to pass the
> return address
> > in the business document or the MSG spec would have to provide a
> place in
> > the header. I suspect that passing it in the business document
> is the
> > better choice since one or both parties' minimal infrastructure
> probably> would not support conversations or otherwise have a
> place to save and
> find
> > the return address. Having the application get the return
> address out of
> > the business document and pass it down with the response message is
> > probably the lower cost implementation.
> >
> > If my comment above is correct, it also suggests that one of the
> costs of
> > minimal infrastructure is moving some function up to the
> application.>
> > This proposal does not eliminate the need for both sides to specify
> > delivery channels in the CPA since each has to know the other's
> > capabilities. Especially, an initiate-only party has to provide some
> > information about its receive capabilities. That means that each
> side has
> > to save some configuration information about the other.
> >
> > There are probably some implications that the MSG team has to
> consider> about this proposal. For example, some header elements
> and attributes
> > might have to be allowed to be empty or not present.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marty
> >
> >
>
************************************************************************
****
>
> *********
> >
> > Martin W. Sachs
> > IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> > P. O. B. 704
> > Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> > 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
> > Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> > Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> >
>
************************************************************************
****
>
> *********
> >
> >
> >
> > Dale Moberg
> > <dmoberg@cycloneco To: "Cppa
> (E-mail)"
> <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > mmerce.com> cc:
> > Subject: [ebxml-
> cppa]For
> CPPA Next-- FW: Transient Channel Requirements for
> > 04/22/2002 05:34 CPP/CPA
> > PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Here are some requirements to consider for our future work.
> >
> > Dale Moberg.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fenton, Chuck [mailto:Chuck_Fenton@stercomm.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 12:15 PM
> > To: Dale Moberg
> > Subject: Transient Channel Requirements for CPP/CPA
> >
> >
> > Dale,
> >
> > Please regard this e-mail as a formal request from the Automotive
> > Interest
> > Action Group (AIAG) Message Routing WG, to include the attached
> > Transient
> > Channel Requirements in the next CPP/CPA version discussion.
> You may
> > regard this as a public document that may be circulated and
> reviewed by
> > anyone you or your TC deem appropriate. I am the contact for
> > questions,
> > etc.
> >
> > Now, having gotten the TC/WG stuff done, I see you are going to
> > Barcelona.
> > So am I. We will have to catch up.
> >
> > -Chuck Fenton
> > Principal Research Engineer
> > Sterling Commerce, Inc.
> > chuck_fenton@stercomm.com
> > 734.930.7862 - Phone
> > 734.930.2301 - Fax
> >
> >
> > <<TransientChannelReqV0.5.rtf>>
> >
> >
> > #### TransientChannelReqV0.5.rtf has been removed from this note
> on April
> > 23 2002 by Martin W Sachs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <" target="l">http://lists.oasis-open.org/o
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC