[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Multiple handlers
Duane Nickull's Question: I reviewed the specification and did not find an answer to this question.Is there anything in the ebXML MS spec that says a MS implementation MUST be capable of supporting multiple HTTP listeners? DaleMoberg> Do you mean anything that implies that a MSH MUST handle multiple URLs? I don't think so. I guess you could set it up so that all messages from all parties to all parties (handled by the MSH) use the same URL. Not a very REST-friendly constraint, but permissible. However, using distinct URLs as initial screening on routing/processing might be useful. It could be conducive to scaling up to a cluster of servers, with different servers configured for different jobs. And so on. I would certainly argue against stipulating that a single MSH MUST use exactly one URL per MSH. That would be a repressive constraint IMO that would unduly restrict implementation and design choice. Duane continues: CPA allows there to be multiple listeners/transport endpoints listed for MSH's that may have more than 1 endpoint. Does this seem logical or is it a potential misalignment of the specifications. DaleMoberg> I don't know if it is "logical" or not but it allows a lot more freedom in configuring a MSH, and using URLs to partition in accordance with resources or whatever. RESTifarians find it "logical"-- even the true "Tao of Web"; other people like to throw everything into one hopper and then struggle to figure out how to demultiplex. CPPA tries to accomodate both ends of the spectrum. I don't think there is any misalignment so far. Unless Messaging tries to stipulate which way to go, I think they are compatible. Personally I favor a tolerant framework that allows both styles.