----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 2:27
Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] ebXML
personally, wouldn't go that path.
Here is a "logical" description of how I personally
see the scenario:
MS Handler is, IMHO, driven by some other software that understands the CPA.
Such software "reads" the CPA and, then, uses the MS Handler to deal with
messaging. This software is the one that, based on the actual CPA content,
properly uses the MSH features to account for messaging, security, reliability
etc. This software may, also, use a specialised agent to
interpret the BPSS choreography.
Now, this is obviously my interpretation and is a
"logical view". I do not want to say that MS Handlers that are able to do
everything are not possible. But, from a logical architecture point of view
there is the possibility to manage the different parts of ebXML with different
softwares that communicate.
I am trying to assess the functional interdependancies
b/w the diferent systems in the ebXML stack from an implementation
standpoint, used in an e-business framework.
As we know, the ebCPPA spec does specify how a CPA
is negotiated between 2 trading partners. I also understood from a couple of
vendors that the CPA instance XML has to be loaded into the internal
database (any form) of the MSH. It really doesnt matter how the CPA is
negotiated or for that matter even if it is in XML form.
All that is required is a conclusion representing the CPA that can be
in any format, as long as it can be loaded into the internal database of the
MSH as provided by the vendor.
This means that an ebMS compliant
MSH has also to be compliant with the ebCPPA. Also since
the ebCPP and ebCPA instances identify the Business Processes
in an ebBPSS instance, it means that the ebMS compliant MSH will also
have to be compliant with the ebBPSS if it has perform the intended function
of being able to validate and process ebMS TR&P messages
This means that the ebMS TR&P cannot be used
independantly for TR&P and forces you to use ebCPPA and ebBPSS. As such,
even though an agreement may not be required between trading partners , we
still need a bare bones 'void agreement' .
my understanding right, or am I missing a point here !?