[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] Re: [ebxml-dev] MSH 1.0 vs 2.0?
Thanks, Engkee. I missed it and so did everyone else.
Conclusion: The CPP and CPA already identify the version of the messaging
service being used. See below.
Regards,
Marty
*************************************************************************************
Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************
Engkee Kwang
<ekwang@vitria.co To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
m> cc:
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] Re: [ebxml-dev] MSH 1.0 vs 2.0?
05/16/2002 07:16
PM
i thought that's what the tp:version attribute of the
ebXMLSenderBinding/ebXMLReceiverBinding is for
is it not?
-engkee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:27 PM
> To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Re: [ebxml-dev] MSH 1.0 vs 2.0?
>
>
>
> The appended correspondence is part of a discussion on the
> dev list about
> interoperability (or lack thereof) between MSH v1 and v2. It
> suggests that
> the CPA indicate which MSH version each party is using in order to
> facilitate ad-hoc solutions to interoperability based on a
> party installing
> both versions of the MSH. Presumably such a version
> indicator would be
> part of the ebXML binding information.
>
> While it has not been submitted as a formal comment, we might wish to
> consider it now or post-V2.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
> **************************************************************
> ***********************
>
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> **************************************************************
> ***********************
> ----- Forwarded by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM on 05/16/2002
> 06:22 PM -----
>
>
> Andrzej Jan
>
> Taramina To: Rudi
> Wirth <wirth@exln.com>
> <andrzej@chaeron. cc:
> ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
> com> Subject: Re:
> [ebxml-dev] MSH 1.0 vs 2.0?
>
>
> 05/16/2002 06:05
>
> PM
>
> Please respond to
>
> andrzej
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC