Re: no synch vs asynch indicator in CPP/CPA

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>]

Chris,

The BP could require synchronous response for BPs that clearly do not
make sense in asynchronous mode of message exchange (e.g. BPs requiring
(near) real-time response). This is one layer removed from
implementation IMO (as it does not specify which specific transport
etc.), and perhaps does make sense for the BPM to specify. There
probably is no need for BPM to specify asynchronous mode (or either/or
case).

The CPP/CPA need also capture only the "synchronous" requirement, in
Delivery Cannel IMHO so that, any transport that supports the
synchronous mode could be bound to the Delivery Channel.

Regards, Prasad

christopher ferris wrote:

> With the removal of the BusinessProtocol and its children
> from the tpaML 1.0.6 in our CPP/CPA DTD, we have lost the
> ability to attribute synchronous versus asynchronous characteristics
> of a delivery channel.
>
> Presently, the BPM specifies synch versus asynch, but IMHO, this
> is the WRONG place to specify such a thing as it imposes a
> constraint on an implementation.
>
> Rather, I think that a delivery channel and/or the
> transport should be declared as having synch or asynch
> characteristics.
>
> This is related to Dale's concerns and (hopefully) investigation
> as to the capabilities of the sender which I believe
> should also capture some aspect of the synch vs asynch nature
> of the initiating (sending) Party's delivery channels.
>
> The distinction as I see it is that the BP should be
> independent of an implementation, but an implementation
> that supports a BP would be engineered so as to provide for
> either response pattern according to its needs.
>
> Comments?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris