ebxml-cppa message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: SimpleCPA [was RE: [ebxml-cppa] Issue: should BusinessTransactionCharacteristics be made zero or one in future CPPA schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)]
- From: "Pim van der Eijk" <pim.vandereijk@oasis-open.org>
- To: "'OASIS ebXML CPPA TC'" <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 16:23:29 +0200
[Nothing to do with BusinessTransactionCharacteristics,
but responding to "SimpleCPA" suggestion]
It would ease hand-editing CPAs.
The least human-reable parts of CPA, and among the ones
most likely to change when building a CPA from a template, are the
XML
Dsig public key information elements. XInclude would allow one to write
something like (exported certificate file name
based on SerialNumber):
<tns:Certificate
tns:certId="P1_SigningCert">
<xi:include
href="../Certs/192466156709589705231692271946384786091.xml"
/>
</tns:Certificate>
Or even
(exported certificate
file name based on IssuerName):
<tns:Certificate
tns:certId="P1_SigningCert">
<xi:include
href="../Certs/CN=Partner A,O=Partner A.xml" />
</tns:Certificate>
This would alleviate the CPA author from having to
copy/paste exported signature information in CPA files.
This assumes the CPA import tool resolves the
XInclude statements prior to compiling the CPA information to its internal
data structures.
Dale,
Flattening, aka simplifying the CPPA / CPA would be a huge plus
(SimpleCPA?!).
Even though people use editors to build these things - making them easier
to visualize would definately aid adoption and use.
The notion of taking two CPP's and gluing them together somehow to make a
CPA is nevertheless fraught IMHO. It's never really worked well - in part
because of all the gnarly refID constructs to name one challenge.
Removing the BusinessTransactionCharacteristics
completely would definately make it easier to align just the communications part
of the arrangement. You'd still need to retrofit your business
transactions - but as you note - if you referenced a BPSS instead - that would
provide the road map to those.
Also - establishing the notion of profiles and
templates for common configuration sets, is another key need.
In fact - if we could somehow break the CPA down
into more sub-atomic parts - that could be included....and also therefore making
things more pluggable...
And I completely agree that retain 100% V2.0
backward-ness is not a critical factor.
Just brainstorming here - and being completely
radical - I'd like to see something like this:
<CPA>
<Header> <include
location="/cpa/myheader-template.xml"/> </Header>
<CommsSetup><include
location="/cpa/tomcat/myComms-template.xml"/>
</CommsSetup>
<Security><include
location="/cpa/ssl/mySSL-template.xml"/> </Security>
<Transactions><include
location="/cpa/UBL/myBPSS-trans-template.xml"/>
</Transactions>
<ErrorHandling><include
location="/cpa/myHandler-template.xml"/> </ErrorHandling>
<Signals><include
location="/cpa/mySignals-template.xml"/> </Signals>
<Extensions><include
location="/wsdl/myExtensions-template.xml"/> </Extensions>
</CPA>
and of course each template would be reflect the
original CPA syntax and stuff relating to each part.
Bit too radical?!?
DW
--------
Original Message --------
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Issue: should
BusinessTransactionCharacteristics
be made zero or one in future CPPA
schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)
From: "Dale Moberg"
<dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
Date: Tue, May 23, 2006 5:15 pm
To:
"OASIS ebXML CPPA TC" <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]