OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-cppa message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] SimpleCPA [was RE: [ebxml-cppa] Issue: should BusinessTransactionCharacteristics be made zero or one in future CPPA schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)]


Sacha,
 
Contrary-wise - I would not need to send you those includes if they are standard pieces already! ; -)
 
And / or available on a URL that you can reach...
 
And of course - you can still in-line those parts you need to have localized.
 
The only issue with xinclude is the breadth of parser support for it - I've not checked
recently - but previously the parsers were shying away from supporting it...?
 
Of course - having <include/> mechanism in CPA itself means that CPA processors need to implement that - even though its trivial function call.
 
I think the issue with xinclude is that it can be recursive and other wild things - that's why the parsers are nervous to implement it.
 
Obviously we can restrict in the CPA spec' how someone can use the xinclude to just a sub-set - and also restrict levels of nesting and so on.
 
DW


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] SimpleCPA [was RE: [ebxml-cppa] Issue: should
BusinessTransactionCharacteristics be made zero or one in future CPPA
schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)]
From: Sacha Schlegel <sschlegel@cyclonecommerce.com>
Date: Wed, May 24, 2006 10:39 am
To: Pim van der Eijk <pim.vandereijk@oasis-open.org>
Cc: 'OASIS ebXML CPPA TC' <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>

Hi Pim

I see your point.

At the same time one of the nice things of the CPA, in my opinion, is
that everything IS in one static file.

Eg if I have to email you the CPA, I can select one file in my email
client no need to worry that I include all required referenced files, eg
even with the correct directory structures if we have the files locally.
Here I would need a CPA tool to only make sure I send you all the
correct files. XInclude may add some more CPA management challenges.

Having information not static in one file may also add some dynamics
into CPA's, eg at one point I change a cert.xml file and all of a sudden
ALL CPA's referencing that cert.xml file reference a new cert when
reread.

Just some thoughts ...

Sacha

On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 16:23 +0200, Pim van der Eijk wrote:
>  
> [Nothing to do with BusinessTransactionCharacteristics, but responding
> to "SimpleCPA" suggestion]
>  
> W3C XInclude (http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/) could support a lot of
> this without requiring incompatible extensions or CPA-specific
> functionality.  
> 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.
>  
> Pim
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> Sent: 23 May 2006 23:59
> To: Dale Moberg
> Cc: OASIS ebXML CPPA TC
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] Issue: should
> BusinessTransactionCharacteristics be made zero or one in future CPPA
> schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)
>
>
>
> 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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]