RE: [ebxml-cppa] Use of "action" to link to actual java processor

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Sacha,

 

OK - good clarification - yes - we need that behaviour of action to validate if that partner is allowed to perform that action with us!  So I cannot trample on that!

 

I was hoping to avoid having yet-another-configuration-file that associates between the payload types and the data handler - would be nice if that was somehow something the CPA allowed.

 

I guess if you want to use web services a la Hermes 2 - you can set a delivery channel to pipe the XML content into from the ebXML delivery frontend.. but that's another whole discussion.

Then again I could overload this parameter - make it both what is in the ebMS header action - and - with say a prefix - like {exec_} use that to call the equivalent handler... e.g. call (exec_my_data_handler);

 

OK - this is then de-referenced nicely.  Does that sound more useable?

 

Thanks, DW

> -------- Original Message
> --------
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] Use of "action" to link to actual
> java
> processor
> From: Sacha Schlegel
> <sschlegel@cyclonecommerce.com>
> Date: Tue, April 11, 2006 2:31
> pm
> To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
> Cc:
> ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> Hi David
>
> In 8.4.12.1
> "action attribute" of the 2.0 CPPA spec:
> ---
>
> The value of the
> REQUIRED action attribute is a string that identifies
> the business
> document
> exchange to be associated with the DeliveryChannel
> identified by the
> ChannelId sub-elements.
> The value of the action
> attribute SHALL be used as the value of the
> Action element in
> the
> ebXML Message Header[ebMS] or a similar element in the Message
> Header of
> an alternative
> message service. The purpose of the
> action attribute is to provide a
> mapping between the
> hierarchical
> naming associated with a Business Process/Application and
> the Action
> element in
> the ebXML Message Header[ebMS]. This mapping MAY be
> implemented by using
> the
> ActionContext element. See NOTE in
> Section 8.4.4 regarding alternative
> Business
> Collaboration
> descriptions.
> Business signals, when sent individually (i.e., not
> bundled with
> response documents in
> synchronous reply mode), SHALL
> use the values ReceiptAcknowledgment,
> AcceptanceAcknowledgment, or
> Exception as the value of their action
> attribute. In addition,
> they
> SHOULD specify a Service that is the same as the Service used
> for the
> original message.
>
>  NOTE: In general, the action
> name chosen by the two Parties to
> represent a
> particular
>  requesting business activity or responding business
> activity in the
> context of a Binary
>  Collaboration that makes
> use of nested BinaryCollaborations MAY not
> be
> identical.
>  Therefore, when composing two CPPs to form a
> CPA, it is necessary to
> make use of
>  information from the
> associated ActionContext (see Section 8.4.16) in
> order to
> determine
>  if two different action names from the two CPPs
> actually represent the
> same
>  ActionContext. When business
> transactions are not reused in different
> contexts, it
> is
>  recommended that the names of the requesting business
> activity and
> responding business
>  activity be used as action
> names.
>
> ---
>
> So I would not choose to set the action to
> something that is particular
> to one party but have the value clearly
> come from the referenced Process
> Specification. The formula I used
> for the UBP was (XPath):
>
> conncat( $RequestingOrRespondingName,
> '
> ',
> //ebBP:BusinessDocument[@nameID=$BusinessDocumentReference]/@name)
>
> where
> $RequestingOrRespondingName is coming from
> the
> BusinessTransactionActivity of that BusinessCollaboration and
> the second
> part is name of the business document.
>
> I
> understand what you are trying to do but ... cant you have
> that
> mapping outside of the CPA?
>
> Of course you are free to
> use your Java method reference, as long as
> both parties agree to it.
>
> Regards
>
> Sacha
>
> On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 10:14 -0700,
> David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
> > Team,
> >  
> > I'm
> doing integration right now using Hermes - and I wanted to have
> a
> > way of controlling the processing of message types directly
> from the
> > CPA - to the java handler that processes the
> content.
> >  
> > It occurs to me I could extend the use
> of the tp:action attribute in
> > the action binding to be the
> actual name of the java handler - since
> > its just text anyway -
> the the two can be equivalent - e.g. human
> > readable - machine
> executable.
> >  
> > What do people think here?  Is
> this total blasphemy - or is this
> > acceptable extension?
>  Or is there a better way of doing this
> > elsewhere in the
> CPA?
> >  
> > Given that the CPA is private this is
> something that two participants
> > can share - and especially if
> they are sharing open source such as
> > Hermes.
> >
>  
> > Thanks, DW
> >  
> > Encl: example CPA
> fragment - 
> >  
> >      
> <tp:CanSend>
> >          
> <tp:ThisPartyActionBinding tp:id="companyA_ABID1"
> >  
>          
> tp:action="Purchase_Order_Request_Action()"
> >    
>        
> tp:packageId="CompanyA_Packaging">
> >      
>      
> <tp:ChannelId>asyncChannelA1</tp:ChannelId>
> >  
>         </tp:ThisPartyActionBinding>
> >
>          
> <tp:OtherPartyActionBinding>
> >        
>     companyB_ABID1
> >          
> </tp:OtherPartyActionBinding>
> >        
> </tp:CanSend>
> >        
> <tp:CanReceive>
> >          
> <tp:ThisPartyActionBinding tp:id="companyA_ABID7"
> >  
>          
> tp:action="Purchase_Order_Confirmation_Action()"
> >    
>        
> tp:packageId="CompanyA_Packaging">
> >      
>     ...
> >        
> </tp:CanReceive>
> > 
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
> that
> > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all
> your TCs in
> > OASIS at:
> >
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php