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] Issue: should BusinessTransactionCharacteristics be made zero or one in future CPPA schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)

Clearly we cannot remove them entirely!  They are needed (vital!).
I think the idea was to allow them to be null if someone wanted that specific option - right now you have to put something as they are required.  This especially effects cpp - I guess this would be functionally like saying "undefined".   Of course really what we need to also consider is making it context driven selections - because that's really at the root of this...
The xinclude approach may allow us to finesse this all anyway?
Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] Issue: should
BusinessTransactionCharacteristics be made zero or one in future CPPA
schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)
From: "steve capell" <steve.capell@redwahoo.com>
Date: Tue, May 23, 2006 7:05 pm
To: "'David RR Webber (XML)'" <david@drrw.info>, "'Dale Moberg'"
Cc: "'OASIS ebXML CPPA TC'" <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>

I would be very much against removing the business transaction characteristics from the CPA.  Certainly they are available from the BPSS but that is not partner specific.  It is a common scenario that the BPSS says (for example, time to ack recpt is 2h) but a specific bilateral relationship wants to either tighten it or relax it.  


In our implementation we take transactions characteristics from the BPSS and override them (if different) with characteristics from the CPA.


I agree about the difficulties of making a CPA from two CPP’s.  Making a CPA from a CPA template is much easier and works well for us.




Steve Capell

Red Wahoo


p: + 61 2 94383700

m:+ 61 410 437854

f:  + 61 2 94392738


This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain information that is confidential and is subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of Red Wahoo Pty. Ltd.


Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.  We do not accept any liability for loss or damage which may arise from your receipt of this e-mail.


From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: 24 May 2006 07:59
To: Dale Moberg
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] Issue: should BusinessTransactionCharacteristics be made zero or one in future CPPA schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)




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:



  <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>



and of course each template would be reflect the original CPA syntax and stuff relating to each part.


Bit too radical?!?




-------- 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]