[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Groups - New Issue Discovered
Guys: I don't see anything critical enough
to require much of our attention before CD2 here. Basically what I hear from Dale is that
indeed whatever is in CollaborationInfo element makes sense in general for a
response, whether "synchronous" or not. That was also my
impression. I'd also propose to postpone any
debate on whether Service/Action should be optional. There seems to be serious
arguments against it, or for making this a non-issue (e.g. I now recall that the
ebMS2 profiling for RosettaNet makes use of Service/Action for response
messages - either Action or Signal messages - regardless whether synchronous or
not.) It seems that far from being used only in the sense of "method
invocation" (which makes sense only for a request) Service/Action is often
used as <businesss Tx Id / doctype name> pair. Also optionality adds one
more interop risk. Should eb:From and eb:To be always reversed
from request to response user message? That is the only statement I would
challenge... (though it seems there are at least 2 TC members who think it
should be so) The practical side of this issue is: - do we want to require MSHs to enforce
this? - will that apply only to the [synchronous]
"simple Request-reply MEP"? when later on we have more complex
asynchronous MEPs with async response messages that have as much business semantics
as the simple MEP will the MSH still need to do so? How would this interfere
with possible use of wsa:ReplyTo ? I'd say it is all well and good if
an agreement or BP requires this - that can always be verified above MSH
level, like so many other Bus Tx parameters like timing. That could also be enforced
by the "processing mode" , i.e. configuration. Can we be so sure
that this constraint suffers no exception that it should be hardcoded in the
MSH (i.e. in MEP definition)? Aren't we going to face such exceptions if
we allow an MSH to be associated with several "eb:From" (or eb:To)? Jacques From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com] 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]