Spot on that I’m assuming the lead
time can be approximated, this is sort of thing that needs to be in the
contract of a service, namely the response time (I don’t think the myriad
of WS-* have worried about this yet…).
The dehydration stuff helps, but when a
service moves from responding in milliseconds to responding in minutes (because
it does an extra check) without the caller knowing it can have a significant
effect on the number. It’s a major gap (IMO) in the WS-* efforts
that there is no WS-Contract (Pre,post, invariant) or WS-SLA (availability,
response times etc) which means the application tuning of things like
dehydration can’t be linked to the actual calls being made.
Steve
From:
John Harby [mailto:jharby@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 November 2005 18:13
To:
soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-blueprints]
Primer
There is an assumption
that a lead time can be approximated. Also, where you say " you don't want 1m state objects hanging around in memory"
there are products such as the Oracle (formerly Collaxa) offering that support
"context dehydration" which handles persistence and reincarnation of
the state of long running flows.
On 11/29/05, Jones,
Steve G <steve.g.jones@capgemini.com>
wrote:
I'll try and add more confusion into the equation….
An example
Service "Sales" has a method "buyProduct"
which takes as parameters a Product ID and quantity (WS-Security is used
to identify the customer), this is built as a BPEL process in the following way
1)
Perform Credit Check (calls CreditService with
the customer details) – short life process
2)
Place Order with Logistics (calls the
LogisticsService with the order, returns a lead time)
3)
Return Lead time back to customer (end of initial
customer interaction)
4)
Receive notification of delivery to Customer
(event back from the LogisticsService)
5)
Invoice Customer (fires off to FinanceService for
the cash handling.
Thus the high level
process (steps 1-5) is a long running process (order of days), which acts
initially to the customer as a short life process (returning the information to
the customer, before waiting for an event to complete the full transaction by
triggering another long running process (inside FinanceService) this later
element being irrelevant to the Sales Service as it completes when it fires the
event (doesn't need to wait for payment).
Long v short is really
about user notification and state management IMO (users need to know
"DON'T WAIT IT WILL TAKE FIVE DAYS" and you don't want 1m state
objects hanging around in memory.
Steve
I'm not very clear on this one. Suppose I have a
simple scenario where an item is scheduled for processing in a factory by
assigning someone a task in an orchestration. The processing takes several days
to complete so the process is long running temporally but the actual BPEL
representing the orchestration could be very brief. How is this long running
process the same as short processes or have I misunderstood the term "long"
here?
On
11/29/05, marchadr@wellsfargo.com
<
marchadr@wellsfargo.com> wrote:
Blackberry typo:
If a process can trigger other processes it seems in an abstract
sense
the same as a long running process.
Since a long running process is essentially short processes
completing triggering the next process to run on a long term entity.
Does this make a bit more sense?
- Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 7:15 AM
To: Marchant, Dan R.; steve.g.jones@capgemini.com;
jinu.joseph@polaris.co.in;
soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-blueprints] Primer
Not sure what meant by
If processes can trigger other processes that seems at and
abstract
since the same as what a long running process is doing.
but generally +1
Ken
At 09:25 AM 11/29/2005, marchadr@wellsfargo.com wrote:
>It seems you guys are pretty much in a greement. To sum up:
>
>1. Long running process in reality are short processes that
are
>executed at different intervals
>2. Processes can trigger other processes to happen
>
>If processes can trigger other processes that seems at and
abstract
>since the same as what a long running process is doing. What
is
>stateful on the long running process is the entity which is
acted
>upon not necessarily the process itself.
>
>Agree?
>
>- dan
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
>To: Jones, Steve G <steve.g.jones@capgemini.com>;
Marchant, Dan R.
><marchadr@imc.wellsfargo.com>; jinu.joseph@polaris.co.in
><jinu.joseph@polaris.co.in
>; soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
><soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Sent: Tue Nov 29 07:31:34 2005
>Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Primer
>
>Steve,
>
>Good luck on the head cold :-)
>
>The key is modularity. You can't reuse pieces if
one piece is the
>entire process. You can't effectively modify your
process if every
>change requires a rewrite of your stovepipe software.
>
>This gets back to the question of what we mean by blueprint
and what
>we are writing it/them for. Do we write a detailed
POS
>blueprint? How reusable is that for someone not
interested in
>POS? Can we lay out a few generic blueprints for
things like
>long-running processes with structure that says, "Your
company
>specific piece fits here."?
>
>So I think we mostly agree.
>
>Ken
>
>At 04:48 AM 11/29/2005, Jones, Steve G wrote:
>
>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ken Laskey [mailto: klaskey@mitre.org]
> > > Sent: 23 November 2005 15:40
> > > To: marchadr@wellsfargo.com; jinu.joseph@polaris.co.in
; soa-
> > > blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Primer
> > >
> >
> > > OK, now we're getting to some meaty issues :-)
> > >
> >
> > > It would seem that a useful pattern would be a
long-running business
> > > process, where the "business" could as
likely be technical as
> > > commercial. What are the requirements
of such a process? What
> > > assumptions do we make about the
process? What are the notional
> > > pieces of a solution? How do these
pieces notionally work
> > > together? Where are there
alternatives? Finally, what combination
> > > of completed standards, specifications within
standards committees,
> > > and private specifications will likely enable such
a blueprint?
> >[Jones, Steve G]
> >
> >
> >Depending on what you mean here by process I'll either
massively agree or
> >throw my hands up in despair :)
> >
> >Unfortunately I'm in Q4 Crunch at the moment so time is
stretched, but on
> >the Soalogic (Google aware in 3 days Dan!) business I'm
looking to define
> >(help would be great) the hierarchy of order to cash
processes. Most IT
> >efforts at the business level that I've seen fail, and
which have been the
> >hardest to clean up, is when IT tries to map an end to
end process in its
> >entirety. This fails for many reasons
> >1) The process is too large and unmanageable
> >2) It's the first time the business has seen its process
codified, they'll
> >want to change it
> >3) Different parts of the organisation want to change
the process in
> >different ways
> >
> >This is why structure is (IMO) 100% required to have a
successful and
> >effective SOA. Taking the loan decisioning
example....
> >
> >This is long running from the CUSTOMERS perspective but
for several
> >departments it's a short-lived process, and one which
they want to optimise
> >(e.g. credit check and scoring) on a regular
basis. Thus there is a
> >high-level process for tracking progression (long
lived), within which each
> >step is probably in itself a process, some long lived
(confirmation of paper
> >work), but mostly short-lived. This is where
service really comes into its
> >own as it provides the boundaries for both the
high-level process (normally
> >fairly static) and the lower level processes (often
required to be dynamic)
> >this differing rates of change in different parts of the
organisation is a
> >massive challenge if you view this as a single process.
> >
> >Each process step should be a service invocation
therefore that has its own
> >associated control and rate of change, which has a clear
boundary from the
> >main process, which is itself just a service offered to
the customer. There
> >is an interesting challenge here on how interactive
processes are exposed
> >and managed from a service, does the process
"request" interaction with the
> >user, or does it have its own contained user interface?
> >
> >I agree with the principle of taking a
"thread" through an organisation, but
> >I'd argue we should treat it more as a series of service
invocations than a
> >CICS transaction.
> >
> >
> >The example below from Dan is a great one, in theory you
could view the POS
> >transaction as being a process that includes
stock-reordering, warehouse
> >management, back to manufacturing, back to the supplier
etc etc. But its
> >not, it's a process that has an effect that could result
in other processes
> >being triggered. Equally strategic budgeting
effects everything in the
> >business, but its an "information in",
"information out" high-level command
> >process.
> >
> >In terms of standards WS-Contract (pre,post,invariant)
would be a welcome
> >addition!
> >
> >Steve (with a massive head cold)
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Note, part of the output of this thought process
could be feedback to
> > > existing committees on what is needed from their
specs or how the
> > > process needs to be curtailed to fit the current
and evolving standards.
> > >
> >
> > > Ken
> > >
> >
> > > At 10:24 AM 11/23/2005, marchadr@wellsfargo.com
wrote:
> > > >Jinu these are good points.
> > > >
> > > >Something I would say to this would be that in
most implementations
> > > >of SOA there are basic structures that could
be followed with the
> > > >variation being the actual business logic.
> > > >
> > > >Even within a certain space there are multiple
blueprint needs.
> > > >
> > > >For instance,
> > > >
> > > >- Fulfilling a loan may be a long running
process that might take
> > > >into account a workflow with certain security
requirements etc...
> > > >
> > > >- While making a wires transfer would have to
be highly available
> > > >and have routing based on fraud and security
rules without the need
> > > >of long running process
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >To apply them to some of the cases within the
soalogic approach you
> > > >could see the following:
> > > >1. Based on the process of developing a
product within soalogic they
> > > >need a managed long running process. This
pattern without the
> > > >specific business logic could be applied to
the loan case. Or could
> > > >even be applied to strategic budget planning,
etc...
> > > >
> > > >2. The retail store is using a pos process
that needs to be secure
> > > >and have fraud detection for purchases made by
the customer this
> > > >could be applied without the specific business
logic to a wire transfer
> > > case.
> > > >
> > > >The actual blueprints could be extracted for 1
that state:
> > > >- WS-BPEL - manage the long running process
> > > >- Transport types that could apply
(HTTP/HTTPS/MQ)
> > > >- WS-Security - for managing who is able to
update from a client
> > > >auth perspective
> > > >- WS-Coordination - to coordinate with
different SORs
> > > >- WS-Notification - to alert either an
operation or customer service
> > > >agent of an issue within the process through
an intermediary service
> > > >- WS-Profile - for indentify the service
> > > >- WS-CAF - to provide context around who the
requestor is
> > > >- Fault Management - how and what type of
responses would happen,
> > > >sending an WSN event?
> > > >- XACML - for determining the rights of the
user invoking the service
> > > >- etc...
> > > >
> > > >So what you end up doing is creating a stack
of patterns that could
> > > >be applied to a problem area that involves
long running operations
> > > >or short fast operations, etc...
> > > >
> > > >Of course the specific technology may not be
decided upon within the
> > > >blueprint but the concepts within WS-BPEL will
be abstracted with an
> > > >example implementation of how WS-BPEL fulfills
the specific request.
> > > >Essentially think of the types of services you
have ever created and
> > > >think about a lot of the common problems you
had to solve along the
> > > >way to get specific business logic to be
invoked within a service
> > > >context. There are a lot of problems that are
common across
> > > >implementations such as security, event
management, auditing, even
> > > >in some cases accounting to chargeback for a
service invocation to a
> > > >specific customer or internal client. Some of
these could be in a
> > > >ESB or some could reside with the service and
it may be worthwhile
> > > >to come up with a sample deployment for each
blueprint that may
> > > >determine the type of system needs associated
with the blueprint.
> > > >
> > > >I'll try and come up with an example at the
end of the week or next
> > > >week so you don't think I am crazy :)
> > > >
> > > >- Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: jinu.joseph@polaris.co.in
[mailto:
jinu.joseph@polaris.co.in]
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:58 PM
> > > >To: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > >Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Primer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Hi Folks
> > > >I am just thinking aloud here. I
feel that while a blueprint
> does give a
> > > >kind of basic map while moving into uncharted
territory, it
> still has the
> > > >following limitations
> > > >
> > > >- Blueprints as discussed are limited to a
category of
> contexts. Going by
> > > >the house analogy the blueprint i need for the
house will be
> dependent on
> > > >who I am and where I want to build the house.
If I am the President of
> > > the
> > > >United States, then I cannot build the house
using the same blueprint
> > > that
> > > >you and me would use, Similarly if I would use
different blueprints to
> > > >build my house in the Sahara
Dessert and my house in Antarctica. What I
> > > am
> > > >trying to say is that the Blueprint might
applicable for a
> type of system
> > > >and may not be useable for all software
systems wanting to go the SOA
> > > way.
> > > >The SOA blueprint for the Financial Services
Systems used by Banks would
> > > be
> > > >different from that used by Corporates for
their Inventory Management
> > > >System.
> > > >
> > > >- Trying to make a generalized blueprint will
lead to such a high level
> > > of
> > > >abstraction that the blueprint itself might
not be of much use. Going
> > > back
> > > >to the house analogy trying to make a
generalized blueprint
> might lead to
> > > >the blueprint only containing guidelines like,
there should be a
> > > >foundation, there should be a ceiling, there
should be windows etc...
> > > >
> > > >- What I feel is that we should have SOA
blueprints based on software
> > > >segments such BFSI segment, ERP segment,
Services like Utilities etc.
> > > >
> > > >What do you say ??
> > > >
> > > >Regards
> > > >Jinu Joseph
> > > >Polaris Software Lab Ltd
> > > >e-mail: jinu.joseph@polaris.co.in
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
<marchadr@wellsf
> > > >
> > >
>
argo.com> To:
> > > > <klaskey@mitre.org>
> > >
> cc:
> > > > <soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org>,
(bcc: jinu.joseph/Polaris)
> > >
>
23-11-05 03:53
Subject: RE:
> > > > [soa-blueprints] Primer
> > >
>
AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >See comments below. Good feedback Ken.
> > > >
-----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ken
Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> > > > Sent:
Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:07 PM
> > > > To:
Marchant, Dan R.
> > > > Cc: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject:
Re: [soa-blueprints] Primer
> > > >
> > > > At 09:50
AM 11/22/2005, marchadr@wellsfargo.com
wrote:
> > >
>
Ken these are questions that I am sure with be concretely
> > >
>
established by this tc. Here is my take (keep in mind I am
> > > on a
> > >
>
blackberry so it might be more terse than normal).
> > > >
> > >
> 1.
A blueprint in my mind is to establish a structure to an
> > >
>
other wise disorganized approach to developing software. I
> > > have
> > >
>
typically called blueprints a reference
> architecture (not to
> > > be
> > >
> confused
w/reference model).
> > > >
> > >
> 2.
Think of the scenario of buying building blueprints from
> > > a
> > >
>
house designer and than having though blueprints tweaked by
> > > a
> > >
>
local architect of the house. Maybe for your requirements
> > > you
> > >
>
need the kitchen closer to the family room or a
> water closet
> > >
>
turned into a walk in closet. Whatever the
> changes the basic
> > >
>
structure is defined for what you need to accomplish
> > > building a
> > >
>
house with N number of rooms that each have a function.
> > > >
> > > > You might
find this analogy interesting:
> > > >
> > > > > Go
back to our house analogy. The RM captures concepts related
> > > to
> > > > > what
makes up a house, e.g. room, window, door. It
> might include
> > > > > the
concepts of food preparation area and personal hygiene area
> > > and
> > > >
> > > > > the
relationship that there should be physical separation
> > > between
> > > > > the
two. Note that this provides a very North American/western
> > > > > Europe reference and not necessarily one that covers a tent. So
> > > a
> > > > >
given RM already provides a perspective.
> > > > >
> > > > >
Given RM concepts, various RAs show how these concepts can be
> > > > >
arranged in a useful pattern. So RA examples would be
> (sorry for
> > > > > the
American terms) a colonial, a split-level, a rambler, etc.
> > > You
> > > > > can
play with the pattern but one can say that any
> given pattern
> > > > >
serves a particular set of purposes (e.g. a rambler is on one
> > > level
> > > >
> > > > > for
those who want/need to avoid stairs).
> > > > >
> > > > > An
architecture is then a specific plan to build a house or set
> > > of
> > > > >
houses. There can still be some variations but you don't do
> > > things
> > > > > like
moving fireplaces or structural walls, else you have a new
> > > > >
architecture.
> > > >
[Marchant, Dan R.] Sounds a lot like the movie "Kitchen Stories"
> > > > about the
period of time where sweden was conducting studies on
> > > the
> > > > usability
of a kitchen to identify patterns of usage.
> In some ways
> > > > the
development of a blueprint is similar in nature to
> the kitchen
> > > > studies
in the 50s.
> > > >
> > > > Is a
rambler a ranch style house? I agree with the structural
> > > > statement
creating a bit of constraints that take care of the
> > > > reduntant
nature of developing an SOA. Everyone in the
> US probably
> > > > has a
water closet (bathroom) in the master bedroom a
> pattern that
> > > is
> > > >
identified based on the experience of the architects in finding
> > > the
> > > > needs of
the consumer of the house. Likewise the blueprints can
> > > > evolve by
building on the reference model.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> 3.
To establish direction or rudder the ship. You need to
> > >
>
establish the pie in the sky and a blueprint can help get a
> > >
>
handle on that pie.
> > > >
> > > > If you
have a ship without a rudder, you are likely beyond being
> > > > saved by
a blueprint :-)
> > > >
> > >
> 4.
There is a type of tracability that can be accomplished
> > >
>
through following a blueprint. Also it may be important to
> > > use
> > > >
a third-party blueprint to establish a motive for changing
> > > the
> > >
>
way a business does things, not sure if this applicable for
> > >
>
everyone but there is definely value in having something to
> > > >
refer too.
> > > >
> > > > Good
points. Now can someone craft those into a paragraph or two
> > > > that any
of us can present to a client and they would feel they
> > > know
> > > > something
they didn't know before?
> > > >
[Marchant, Dan R.] Wiki ?
> > > >
> > >
> My
take is this on the blueprint roadmap so to speak.
> > > >
> > >
> 1.
Establish a couple different scenarios where services
> > > would
> > >
> help
and how the service would be structured within that
> > >
>
context and including supporting services.
> > > >
> > >
> 2.
Take the scenarios and generalize them into
> patterns with
> > >
>
some technology choices as and example of implementing
> > > pattern.
> > > >
> > >
> 3.
Establish an overview of how all the supporting services
> > >
>
could be structure to support the various patterns.
> > > >
> > >
> It
would essentially turn into a type of framework, a
> > > service
> > >
>
could follow and establish the need for supporting services
> > > in
> > >
> a
formal way.
> > > >
> > > > Step 2
after you define a blueprint is to lay out how you would
> > > > create
one. Your roadmap looks like a good initial
> approach, both
> > > > for
motivating a blueprint and showing how one blueprint
> > > >
can/should/might support more than one scenario.
> > > >
> > >
> I
could see it on the same lines of developing anything
> > > spring
> > >
> or
a portal. You have a set of facilities that are
> > > applicable
> > >
>
for certain scenarios that than could be implemented of
> > >
>
configured appropriately.
> > > >
> > >
>
The great unknown being what business logic is
> performed but
> > >
>
most of it could be generalized into some type of pattern.
> > > For
> > >
>
example, transaction based, inquiry based, aggregation, or
> > > even
> > >
>
everyone's favorite semantic service.
> > > >
> > >
>
Thoughts from the group?
> > > >
> > >
>
Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
-----Original Message-----
> > > >
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
> > >
>
To: Marchant, Dan R. <marchadr@imc.wellsfargo.com>
> > >
>
CC: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >
>
<soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > >
Sent: Mon Nov 21 22:42:48 2005
> > >
>
Subject: Re: [soa-blueprints] Primer
> > > >
> > >
> I
have not been following the email carefully enough, so
> > >
>
forgive me if this has already been established but
> > > >
> > >
> 1.
Exactly what is a blueprint?
> > >
> 2.
What purpose does it serve?
> > >
> 3.
Why should I think one will be generally applicable?
> > >
> 4.
Why do I care?
> > > >
> > >
> Do
we expect that a blueprint will be a sort of turnkey
> > >
>
formula? How do we determine the limits of applicability
> > > for a
> > >
>
given blueprint? Are there underlying assumptions that all
> > >
>
blueprints have in common, or is each blueprint
> > > fundamentally
> > >
>
different (a very possible construction), or are there
> > >
>
fundamental groupings with multiple non-redundant examples
> > > in
> > >
>
each group?
> > > >
> > >
> I
think agreeing on a clear strawman definition
> of blueprint
> > > is
> > >
>
essential. It can be modified as we learn more but we need
> > > a
> > >
>
clear starting point.
> > > >
> > >
>
Ken
> > > >
> > >
> On
Nov 21, 2005, at 9:12 PM, <marchadr@wellsfargo.com>
> > >
>
<marchadr@wellsfargo.com>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
One question to pose to the group is maybe the case study
> > >
>
actually becomes a type of primer for the blueprints once
> > > the
> > >
>
blueprints are defined.
> > > >
> > >
>
Thoughts?
> > > >
> > >
>
Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
---
> > >
>
Ken Laskey
> > >
>
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305
phone: 703-983-7934
> > >
>
7515 Colshire Drive fax:
> > >
>
703-983-1379
> > >
> McLean VA 22102-7508
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>---------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > > --------
> > > >
> > >
> / Ken Laskey
> > > > \
> > >
> | MITRE
Corporation, M/S
H305 phone: 703-983-7934 |
> > >
> | 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-
> > > 1379
> > > > |
> > >
> \ McLean VA 22102-7508
> > > > /
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>---------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > > ---------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >This e-Mail may contain proprietary and
confidential information and
> > > >is sent for the intended recipient(s) only.
> > > >If by an addressing or transmission error this
mail has been
> > > >misdirected to you, you are requested to
delete this mail immediately.
> > > >You are also hereby notified that any use, any
form of reproduction,
> > > >dissemination, copying, disclosure,
modification,
> > > >distribution and/or publication of this e-mail
message, contents or
> > > >its attachment other than by its intended
recipient/s is strictly
> > > prohibited.
> > > >
> > > >Visit Us at http://www.polaris.co.in
> > >
> >
> > > --
> > >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -------------
> > > / Ken
> > >
Laskey \
> > > | MITRE
Corporation, M/S
H305 phone: 703-983-7934 |
> > > | 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
|
> > > \ McLean VA
>
22102-7508 /
> > >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -------------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >This message contains information that may be privileged
or
> >confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group.
It is
> >intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If
you are not
> >the intended recipient, you are not
authorized to read, print,
> >retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use
this message or any
> >part thereof. If you receive this message in
error, please notify
> >the sender immediately and delete all copies
of this message.
>
>--
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> / Ken
>Laskey \
> | MITRE Corporation, M/S
H305 phone: 703-983-7934 |
> | 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
|
> \ McLean VA 22102-7508 /
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Ken
Laskey \
| MITRE Corporation, M/S
H305 phone: 703-983-7934 |
| 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
|
\ McLean VA 22102-7508 /
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This
message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is
the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not
authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this
message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
|
This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
|
|