[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue: should BusinessTransactionCharacteristics be made zero or one in future CPPA schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)
Many months ago several people (especially Hima) noted that BusinessTransactionCharacteristics is sometimes unnecessary and in general can complicate the checks for an acceptable compatibility between CPPs when forming a CPA.
When using BPSS (especially 2.0), and when not changing any values from those in the BPSS instance, the BusinessTransactionCharacteristics attributes end up repeating information in the BPSS instance. In addition, the QOS parameters needed for a message service are generally independently documented in specialized sections of the DocExchange element or in the Transport, so the “abstract” features of the BTC tend to just summarize the real configuration details.
Since we are trying to wrap up changes, errata, and ebMS 3.0 support in the CPPA specification, I would like the TC to review this optionality issue and decide whether we should change the cardinality to allow omission of the element when it is not really needed. (and document when that is).
I recall this issue was raised when considering how to flatten the XML hierarchy of CPPs and CPAs (which most agree would make it simpler to read if not to use!). I think flattening could be done but it would be a departure from conserving the structure of CPPA 2.0 instances. Since CPPA instances are probably headed toward being something that are never “seen” in editors, but only imported and exported by software, flattening is not something I have heard much about lately. If you think we should reconsider this for the transition to committee draft from editor draft, please discuss on the list.