[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: TPA and ebXML Header question
Summing up what I think I have seen on MS ACKS (composite of opinion, not necessarily consensus): MS ACKs are needed (this is essential to reliable messaging) The messaging service should not require blocking of a logical channel until an MS ACK is received. Blocking may in any case be enforced by business-level responses. Partner Profile and Partner Agreement should specify whether blocking is required. Note: in my opinion, this tag would refer to the messaging service ACKs, not the business process. Blocking at the business process level would be specified in the business process model and manifest itself in the PA in the response definitions and sequencing rules or whatever equivalent we come up with. New point: For many applications, the latency effects of blocking at the MS level would be substantially reduced if what we are calling a logical channel is really a conversation. A good implementation would provide for many concurrent conversations even within a single PA. Thus when the MS blocks until receiving an ACK it would only affect the conversation of which the message and ACK are a part. 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 ************************************************************************************* Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS on 10/04/2000 10:17:01 AM To: Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com> cc: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>, Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com>, "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>, "ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org> Subject: RE: TPA and ebXML Header question It is fine if a specific business process utilizes business level acks. A robust ms also needs ms level acks. There is a need for both. Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer XML Industry Enablement IBM e-business Standards Strategy 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519) srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074 Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com> on 10/03/2000 07:14:05 PM To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com> cc: Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com>, "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>, "ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org> Subject: RE: TPA and ebXML Header question Marty and David, All of the business aspects of document processing, including what kinds of acks are expected, are defined by the Commercial Transaction patterns that are part of the BP Collaboration Metamodel now (finally) posted on the BP work page at: http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/business_process/wip/index.html (They are actually pretty much the same as RosettaNet, so the POC vendors should know how to handle them.) -Bob Haugen -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [SMTP:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 6:13 PM To: David RR Webber Cc: Zvi Bruckner; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org 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