Re: Registry Headers

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com>]

Mark,

I apologize for not having responded earlier (I was offline) but there is still
a problem in what you say the Action should be.. Unlike other business processes
where such questions may be open for debate the RR Services v0.8 spec is quite
clear on what the ServiceInterface and Action should be. In pervious emails I
have cited the line numbers and sections that specify the expected data. In
previous emails I have also sent sample TRP messages that clearly state what the
Action.

So for example the Action to get the RootClassificationNodes is
getRootClassificationNodesAsync as in following excerpt:

      <TPAInfo>
         <TPAId>SunRegistryClient_SunRegistryService_ebXML_Registry_1.0</TPAId>

<ConversationId>Sun_Registry_Client_Coversation_deb5f:e2789bf691:-7ffe</ConversationId>

         <ServiceInterface>ObjectQueryManager</ServiceInterface>
         <Action>getRootClassificationNodesAsync</Action>
      </TPAInfo>

The algorithm is quite simple. The ServiceInterface is the name of the interface
receiving the message (ObjectQueryManager) defined by the UML class diagram in
Figure 9. The name of the Action is the method name
(getRootClassificationNodesAsync) rather than the root element of the request
message payload as you suggest. This mapping is speced in v0.8 at:

lines 320-322
Section 3.2 gives the interpretation of the mapping algorithm using the
registration process as an example.

Finally, observe that the scheme you suggest is not only inconsistent with the
spec but also would not allow for the caller to invoke the synchronous variation
of the same query (getRootClassificationNodes) because both request message
payloads have the same root element.

So let us please agree on the above speced behaviour. This discussion has made
it clear that the spec needs to be much clearer on this point.

Thanks for your help.

--

Regards,
Farrukh

Mark Hale wrote:

> With respect to the ebXML Headers required to interact with RegRep, we need
> to finalize on the header info.  I think that the suggestion that I made
> earlier went on a long-winded tangent.  Please permit to back up and see if
> we can reach consensus.
>
> Step 1:  The header looks the following where and we are trying to reach
> consensus on --A-- and --B--
>
>         <ebXMLHeader>
>           <Header>
>             <TPAInfo>
>               <TPAId context = "POC">
>                 CPA/CPAInfo/CPAName
>               </TPAId>
>               <ConversationId context = “POC
>                 uid@requester-domain [from request message]
>               </ConversationId>
>               <ServiceInterface>     --A--    </ServiceInterface>
>               <Action>  --B--      </Action>
>             </TPAInfo>
>           </Header>
>           ...
>         </ebXMLHeader>
>
> Step 2:  I propose the values of A & B should be:
>
>  --A-- == Object Query Manager
>   Note:  This is only one of several service interfaces
>  --B-- == GetRootClassificationNodesRequest
>   Note:  This is only one of several actions within the interface
>
> Step 3:  I suggested the locations of A & B in the cpp-cpa DTD in the e-mail
> sent earlier.  Please do not use the locations in the header.  Rather I
> thought I would tell you exactly where you can find the values of A & B in
> the DTD:
>
> --A-- == CPA/BusinessProtocol/BusinessInterface/ServiceInterface?InterfaceId
> --B-- ==
> CPA/BusinessProtocol/BusinessInterface/ServiceInterface/ActionMenu/Action/Re
> quest/RequestMessage
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Mark
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Hale [mailto:hale@ajubasolutions.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 3:12 PM
> > To: ebXML-poc
> > Subject: Registry Headers
> >
> >
> > JP raised a good point.  First, I would like to add some
> > background.  JP is
> > referring to the ebXML headers for messages going to the RegRep
> > and not the
> > CPA itself.  There are two things that must be considered, the CPP/CPA and
> > the header.  Though we now have the CPA DTD from Marty, the TPAInfo in the
> > headers are not fully aligned (to prove it TPAInfo ceases to exist in the
> > DTD).  In fact, a proposal hit the thread today to align the two.
> >
> > IMHO, I would like to augment JP's proposal from earlier and suggest the
> > following (I've inserted the full element locations in a RegRep
> > CPA into the
> > ebXML Header sample):
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > <ebXMLHeader>
> >   <Header>
> >     <TPAInfo>
> >       <TPAId context = "POC">
> >         CPA/CPAInfo/CPAName
> >       </TPAId>
> >       <ConversationId context = “ItemAlignment">
> >         uid@requester-domain [from request message]
> >       </ConversationId>
> >       <ServiceInterface>
> >
> > CPA/BusinessProtocol/BusinessInterface/ServiceInterface?InterfaceId
> >       </ServiceInterface>
> >       <Action>
> >
> > CPA/BusinessProtocol/BusinessInterface/ServiceInterface/ActionMenu
> > /Action/Re
> > quest/RequestMessage
> >       </Action>
> >     </TPAInfo>
> >   </Header>
> >   ...
> > </ebXMLHeader>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Example Data:
> >
> > CPA/BusinessProtocol/BusinessInterface/ServiceInterface?InterfaceI
> > d = Object
> > Query Manager
> > CPA/BusinessProtocol/BusinessInterface/ServiceInterface/ActionMenu
> > /Action/Re
> > quest/RequestMessage = GetRootClassificationNodesRequest
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >       Thanks,
> >
> >       Mark
> >
> >

--
Regards,
Farrukh

begin:vcard 
n:Najmi;Farrukh 
tel;fax:781-442-1610
tel;work:781-442-0703
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.sun.com
org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software
adr:;;1 Network Drive, MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com
fn:Farrukh S. Najmi
end:vcard