[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Re: Use cases for messageOrdering
Thanks, Arvola, that's what I assumed. So RosettaNet is not a use case that demonstrates the need for message ordering in the MSH. Given that the UMM and BPSS permit design of BusinessTransactionActivities that have no business level signals/responses can you say anything about a design practice that doesn't use business level signals but expects that the messages will be received in the order sent? In other words, are there valid use cases (including good design practice) for this that justify the message ordering function in the MSH? 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 ************************************************************************************* "Arvola Chan" <arvola@tibco.com> on 11/30/2001 03:03:19 PM To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc: <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: Use cases for messageOrdering Marty: RosettaNet PIPs conform to business transaction patterns defined in the UMM. They make use of business signals (Receipt Acknowledgments) to indicate successful receipt of business documents. Sometimes, the Receipt Acknowledgment signal also serves the function of providing non repudiation of receipt. All asynchronous RosettaNet PIPs that I am aware of make use of Receipt Acknowledgments. The only synchronous PIP in existence, PIP2A9, fits into the UMM query-response pattern, so there is a synchronous response. When using BPSS to model binary collaborations, transitions and guards govern the order in which BusinessTransactionActivities are executed. Typically, one BusinessTransactionActivity would have to be successfully executed before another one is started (except when the fork construct is used). If the RequestingBusinessActivity and/or RespondingBusinessActivity within a BusinessTransactionActivity specifies a timeToAcknowledgeReceipt, then ReceiptAcknowledgments will have to be used and the BusinessTransactionActivity cannot be considered successful until the Receipt Acknowledgment has been returned. With UMM and BPSS, it is possible to design BusinessTransactionActivities that have no business level signals/responses (especially when there are no NRR requirements). In practice, all RosettaNet PIPs have business level signals/responses. Regards, -Arvola -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com> To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com> Date: Friday, November 30, 2001 11:02 AM Subject: Use cases for messageOrdering > >Arvola, > >I hope that you will look over and reply to this morning's thread among >Shimamoto-san, Dan Weinreb, Jacques Durand and me since RosettaNet examples >have been given. > >Are there valid use cases where a sequence of messages within a >conversation is sent without responses but the recipient must receive them >in the order in which they were sent? Why wouldn't business-level responses >be prescribed for such a situation? > >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 > *************************************************************************** ********** >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC