[ebxml-msg] Re: Use cases for messageOrdering

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

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
>
***************************************************************************
**********
>