[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: TPA and ebXML Header question
Such a "checked OK" message would have to be sent in response to every received message even though a transport-level acknowledgment had been received and before a business-level response. That approximately doubles the message traffic. I believe there is a strong case for an optimistic protocol: send only "checked not ok" and let the business-level response imply that the message was delivered to the application with no error. 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 ************************************************************************************* Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com> on 09/28/2000 06:01:14 AM To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org Subject: Re: TPA and ebXML Header question Thanks for the explanation. Continuing the same line with message types defined in the Overview and Requirements document: Is there any identification in the header for "Checked OK" message ? Its definition implies that it is sent by MS after for example XML validation that can be done after already sending an Ack message to confirm delivery. Zvi Bruckner Sapiens Technologies Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM wrote: > Tzvi, > > Since the ebXML trading-partners team got started only last month, details > like the one you are questioning have not yet been considered. Also, the > statement you are pointing to in the IBM tpaML proposal may be obsolete (I > am not sure at this point). Version 1.0.6 of tpaML defines a separate > response message for exception conditions and a separate action definition > at the other party to process exception response messages. It may be that > such an indicator is not needed in the header if ebXML retains the > exception response message definition. It depends on whether the Messaging > Service has to be aware that a message is reporting an exception condition > which is to be processed by the business process level. > > 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 > ************************************************************************************* > > Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com> on 09/26/2000 10:34:27 AM > > To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org > cc: > Subject: TPA and ebXML Header question > > According to a note in the TPA specs (2.9.19.2): > "The framework-level information associated with the message indicates > only success or failure...In addition a field in the standard message > header ... may indicate success or failure" > >From what I could understand the MessgaeType attribute of the > ebXMLHeader with the value of Error means an MS error message. Is there > a way to specify application success/failure in the header ? > > Zvi Bruckner > Sapiens Technologies
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC