RE: [ebxml-msg] more about MEPs

[Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] more about MEPs

I would also make case #1 the main driver for this "pull" mode:
something we consider important for our customers, and not just with SMTP.
(the Acknowledgement schemes are indeed limited, which makes precisely the point that
different reliability contracts are needed for "responses")

case #2, ("occasional connectivity" in RosettaNet messaging requirements)
may require something more than an asynchronous pull: that problem seems to be
generally orthogonal to the MEPs being used. I am not even sure how "asynchronous pull" would
work here. What may be needed is, for connections that were interrupted, some way to notify their
sending endpoints that the MSH is available again for receiving. Also, for a sender, some way to figure
that a receiver is down, and behave accordingly.

Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Turpin [mailto:jturpin@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 9:22 PM
To: Doug Bunting; Jacques Durand
Cc: 'ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] more about MEPs

IMO we are definitely trying to solve the first case (especially for the
HTTP binding). You are correct Doug that the ebMS 2.0 SMTP binding does more
or less cover this case. However, IMO it would be beneficial to allow this
type of functionality over HTTP. As for Async vs. Sync, for the first case
it would obviously need to be sync. The Async "pull" model would seem to
work well for the second case, at least with an SMTP binding.

Jeff

> From: Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:32:28 -0700
> To: Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: "'ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org'" <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] more about MEPs
>
> I am no longer sure about what problem we are trying to solve with "pull".
>
> Is the issue getting all messages (acknowledgements, Faults and inbound
> business payloads) *back* across a firewall that permits only outbound
> communication?  If this is the case, do we need to further worry about the
> system at the other end not supporting immediate (synchronous)
> acknowledgement?
>
> Is the issue supporting senders and receivers which are not continuously
> available in some slightly-more-efficient manner?  That is, are we avoiding
> one side resending while the other is off line?  If this is the case, an
> asynchronous pull would make sense.
>
> ebMS 2.0 had an SMTP binding that seemed to cover both cases...
>
> thanx,
> doug
>
> On 20-Sep-04 18:16, Jacques Durand wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Note that "pull" above is always "synchronous" (uses a SOAP
>> Request-response).
>> (Does it make sense to have an "asynchronous" pull ? )
>>
>> Jacques
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
> OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/members/leave_workgroup
> .php.
>
>