RE: no synch vs asynch indicator in CPP/CPA

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

I agree with Bob. There are clearly two levels of semantics for
synch/asynch.
However, I am also concerned about the complexity ramifications to this
with
regard to implementation and ultimately ebXML buy-in.

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 01/29/2001 10:45:34 AM

To:   "'christopher ferris'" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>,
      "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:
Subject:  RE: no synch vs asynch indicator in CPP/CPA



<Christopher Ferris>
As for a Business Process description/model incorporating
a notion of synchronous vs asynchronous in the MODEL, I think
that clearly this is a mistake. What is synchronous or asynchronous
is an implementation detail that should be described
at the level of the CPP/CPA in describing the technical
details of how the messages can be exchanged for a given business
process that is based on the implementation capabilities
of the partners, NOT on the description of the business
process model.
</Christopher Ferris>

I think there are notions of sync vs async that *are* appropriate
for the business process level, and they may be different from
the sync vs async at the transport level.

For example, async at the business process level may mean
that the business process does not expect a response
document in this transaction, but the response will arrive
in a separate transaction at some later time, which will
need to be associated with the request in business
collaboration software.  The request document in this
case could have been transmitted synchronously
with transport-level acks (or not).

-Bob Haugen