Re: Synchronous Messaging Proposal - Some Thoughts

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>]

Mike,

Any reason you moved this discussion to POC? Could we continue this TRP team?

Prasad

Michael Joya wrote:

> Hi group,
>    The synchronous/asynchronous topic is of special interest to me. Here
> is my 0.02$ to consider:
>
> 1.  Make the clear distinction in the TRP Message specification between
> acknowledgement messages and reply messages. Ack messages are sent by
> the MSH layer to another MSH layer and are central to the ebxml
> messaging protocol. Reply messages are sent on behalf of the application
> or service and convey some meaning exterior to the ebxml messaging protocol.
>
> 2.  Acknowledgement messages deserve the most reliable delivery method
> available. In a synchronous transport protocol such as HTTP/HTTPS, this
> is readily available and is the immediate connection upon which the
> request was made.
>    Proposal: OnceAndOnlyOnce messages should be required to use a
> synchronous transport medium. The acknowledgement should arrive on the
> same connection as was used to send the original message.
>
> 3. One-way protocols (SMTP) are inherently bad choices for building an
> additional layer of reliability upon. However, because they often have
> their own assured delivery mechanisms, they make good choices for
> "BestEffort" messages.
>    Proposal: BestEffort messages should be required to use an
> asynchronous transport.
>
> Dick, would 2 and 3 infringe on DOE requirements?
>
> --
> // mike.joya@xmlglobal.com
> // XML Global
> // POC Project Team - ebXML
> // Vancouver, Canada
> // 604.717.1100 x230