[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL
David: I vote for option 1: Stop processing and send back an Error -- NotSupported/Error. I don't like option 2 because it violates the definition of SOAP:mustUnderstand. It should be the responsibility of the sending application to understand the error code NotSupported and retry the transaction without asking for the unsupported feature if necessary. I agree with Marty that if the two parties are governed by a CPA, it should be extremely rare for one party to request for a feature that is not supported by the other party. Regards, -Arvola -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com> To: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> Cc: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL > >While these mismatches must be detected, the should be very infrequent if >the trading partners use a CPA or virtual CPA. > >Regards, >Marty > >*************************************************************************** ********** > >Martin W. Sachs >IBM T. J. Watson Research Center >P. O. B. 704 >Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 >914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 >Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM >Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com >*************************************************************************** ********** > > > >David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 11/08/2001 10:22:10 AM > >To: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> >cc: >Subject: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL > > > >I am discussing the use of OPTIONAL modules with IIC, and I need to get a >question answered. > >What do we want to do if, for instance, an AckRequested element is on the >message but the Receiving MSH does not support RM. I see three options: > >1) Stop processing and send back an Error -- NotSupported/Error >2) Continue processing but send back an Error -- NotSupported/Warning >3) Ignore and continue processing (no error). > >Since AckRequested has mustUnderstand="1", option 3 is not really an option >(unless we change). I think business users would prefer that a PO goes on >through (option 2) and I am leery of stopping a message when there is no >error >in the message so I don't really like option 1. > >SOAP 1.1 section 4.2.3 SOAP mustUnderstand Attribute says: > >. . .with a value of "1" the recipient of that header entry either MUST >obey the >semantics (as conveyed by the fully qualified name of the element) and >process >correctly to those semantics, or MUST fail processing the message. . . > >Can we specify the behavior of option 2 with a value mustUnderstand="1"? > >Thoughts? > >Regards, > >David Fischer >Drummond Group. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC