Re: [ebxml-dev] MSH 1.0 vs 2.0?

[Andrzej Jan Taramina <andrzej@chaeron.com>]

Rudi:

> In our particular case, it would be the combination of the "adapter"
> name and the CPA location (by partyid).  In other words, you'd configure
> two named ebXML adapters (ie MSH) as ie "ebxml104" and "ebxml" (2.0),
> both with the appropriate .jar, and then the respective CPA per
> participant/party.  Otherwise, if you'd get the MSH version number from
> the CPA, you'd have to write conditonal ebXML java code if you keyed the
> adapter with just "ebxml".  Hmm .. I guess conditional code works fine
> for minor version changes, ie 2.0-2.01, in which case the header would
> contain the ebMS string.

The problem I see with this is that it is a vendor specfic solution....which seems a bit 
out of place in an ebXML implementation that is supposedly standards based.

Inbound messages should not be a big deal, since the ebXML Message Header 
provides a version attribute (1.0 or 2.0 right now) that an MSH implementation (either 
custom coded for part of a vendor solution) could use to determine how to parse the 
incoming message.  Alternatively, it would be fairly easy to specify different endpoint 
URLs in the CPA that is in place with a specific trading partner, and these URLs 
would correspond to the MSH spec level supported by the particular endpoint.  I 
expect that vendors of commerical MSH software will handle this scenario as a 
matter of course.

The more problematic part is sending of outgoing messages, since you need to 
figure out what version level your partner expects before sending the message out 
(unless you get lucky and they support both versions as noted above). 

I would have thought that this would be something that should have been also 
specified in the CPA (and CPP's as well), but cannot find anything in the CPPA 1.9 
spec that would allow this.  Either I have missed something obvious.....or the CPPA 
spec is lacking in this regard and needs to be extended to handle this scenario.  The 
alternative is to rely on vendor/proprietary solutions for outbound messages, which is 
not a very attractive proposition!





...Andrzej

Chaeron Corporation
http://www.chaeron.com