[ebxml-msg] Re: Use cases for messageOrdering

[Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>]

Marty:

I tend to agree with you that RosettaNet is not a use case that demonstrates
the need for message ordering in the MSH.

A BPSS BusinessTransaction has an "isGuaranteedDeliveryRequired" attribute.
We interpret "isGuaranteedDeliveryRequired" set to true to mean that
Reliable Messaging is to be used. If Reliable Messaging guarantees delivery
order, it allows process designers to take advantage of the message ordering
and optimize away the use of Receipt Acknowledgment signals (when there is
no non repudiation of receipt requirement.

I am in favor of the CPA stating whether the use of Reliable Messaging
between two parties also implies that messaging ordering to be supported for
every conversation. I don't think we should allow message ordering to be
enabled for just a subset of the messages within a conversation. In other
words, I don't think the decision to include a MessageOrder element should
be a "per message" decision. It should be completely determined by the CPA.
The sole purpose of the MessageOrder element is to carry the sequenceNumber.

I agree with Doug that the messageOrderSemantics within MessageOrder (in the
Messaging Service schema) should be done away with, and that the
SequenceNumber should always be required.

Regards,
-Arvola

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>
Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:59 PM
Subject: 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
>>
>***************************************************************************
>**********
>>
>
>
>
>