[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: TPA and ebXML Header question
DW, Isn't the confirm you are talking about part of the business process? It seems to me that you want the business process to say "I got it" rather than having the messaging service say "I was able to parse it OK and passed it on to the business process but I it isn't my job to know if the business process actually got it or fumbled the ball." 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 ************************************************************************************* David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>@compuserve.com> on 10/03/2000 06:46:02 PM To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc: Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com>, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org Subject: Re: TPA and ebXML Header question Message text written by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM >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< >>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty - this will depend on the business workflow use case. Some will require an explicit confirm - before proceeding to the next step. We should support both models - but default to 'delivery accepted without confirm'. DW.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC