[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Groups - New Issue Discovered
Your point is really about whether ebMS
MEPs should have more semantics w/r to the ebMS header content. - CollaborationInfo still contains info that
makes sense for responses (e.g. COnversationId, and AgreementRef - though
optional - will likely be used in the response if it has been used in the
request.) Dale>> The use of ConversationId
should be required for allowing several concurrent instances of a process to be
distinguished for monitoring purposes, IMO. Otherwise ebMS lacks some features needed
for a business quality solution. Perhaps we can have a web services profile
for “interoperability” of a MSH with a WS node, but to me, that
would just be something like saying, use SOAP 1.1/1.2. -
Service/Action are the only questionable
fields, and here it may be up to users ( up to some profiling they
decide) how to use them in a response. Other ebXML specifications say how Service
and Action are to be used in combination with ebMS. Are you going to ignore
that? -
-
In case they are not supposed to be used,
they can always remain empty fields - the way ebMS2 would do with its de-facto
req-resp MEP (syncreplyMode) - otherwise if we don't like that then these elements
should be the ones to be made optional. -
even the eb:From and eb:To are not
required to be reversed in a Request-reply MEP (spec does not require this) -
Dale>>
I think we should require that they be reversed and that this is part of the
definition of the MEP. If a Reply goes somewhere else, it is a different MEP. I
think this requirement should be made for interoperability and so that
monitoring of messaging contracts remains governed by clear semantics. Are we
really aiming to become so technologically amorphous that ebMS provides no
support for the other parts of ebXML? -
-
and indeed, in some cases the response
may go to a different party on the back-end, even if the same MSH is used. Dale>> I think this alters the
definition of Request Response pattern as understood in ebXML (which is mainly
a business semantic). Certainly it loosens it up so much that the ebMS becomes
a poor implementation for the BPSS patterns. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]