RE: Initial correlation of ebXML Transport requirements with CORBA services

["Rik Drummond" <drummond@onramp.net>]

to this end. please let me know what standard each of you will evaluate
against the still moving criteria. Please respond by the end of the week.
thanks... rik

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of Nicholas
Kassem
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 3:12 PM
To: David Burdett; Rik Drummond
Cc: ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Initial correlation of ebXML Transport requirements with
CORBA services


David,

The process you outlined makes sense to me. As an aside, and not wishing to
prolong the debate,  I do favor a data/protocol approach. An XML messaging
infrastructure is more likely to be adopted and broadly deployed if it
makes as few assumptions about the end-communicating systems as possible. I
don't think XML messaging should preclude having an ORB at either end of
the interaction, but I do think that this should be viewed (in the context
of ebXML) as a special case. The norm and hence the design center (IMO)
needs to be dissimilar (and potentially unsophisticated) environments. It's
the ability to deal with asymmetric transaction environments that will make
this a useful and broadly adopted standard. I also agree that, where
possible, we should avoid re-inventing the wheel.

Regards,
Nick

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nicholas Kassem
Enterprise Java, Java Software,
Sun Microsystems Inc.,
Cupertino, CA
(408) 863-3535
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


At 09:27 AM 12/14/99 -0800, David Burdett wrote:
>Folks
>
>A couple of thoughts ...
>
>The idea of developing a "Requirements" document is so that we can do our
>diligience by comparing various standards and approaches against the
>requirements in a standard way.
>
>As folks have probably already guessed, personally, I can see more benefit
>in a data/protocol based approach vs an CORBA like API/remote procedure
call
>based approach.
>
>But what I think we should do, rather than start (continue??) the debate
>right now, is:
>1. Finalize the requirements so that we're all happy with them
>2. Develop/agree the list of what standards/initiatives we will evaluate
>3. Assign responsibility for writing the evaluations to individuals
>4. Those individuals write the evaluations
>5. Collectively we review each evaluation and discusss on the list
>6. Get a conference call together to identify which way to go
>
>... and of course set dates for all the above so that we're done by the
next
>F2F meeting of ebXML
>
>Does this make sense?
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Henry Lowe [mailto:hlowe@omg.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 7:35 AM
>To: Rik Drummond
>Cc: srh@us.ibm.com; Henry Lowe; ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org;
>andrew@emerald.omg.org; soley@emerald.omg.org
>Subject: RE: Initial correlation of ebXML Transport requirements with
>CORBA services
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>This raises an interesting question -- what model does XML
>require?  In San Jose, before I joined the Packaging & Transport
>group, I spent 10-15 minutes with the Architecture folk.  They
>were talking in terms of objects and components.  I just carried
>this over to the P&T discussion as a given, i.e., ebXML wants an
>OO transport.  I think this makes sense (all the usual arguments
>for OO and componenets), but Rik's question makes me pause and
>ask if this is a valid assumption.  Comments?
>
>Best regards,
>Henry
>-------------------------------------
>At 02:36 PM 12/13/1999 -0600, Rik Drummond wrote:
>>so can someone tell us what the functionality of these models.. so that we
>>can do our due diligence?
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: srh@us.ibm.com [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com]
>>Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 12:25 PM
>>To: Henry Lowe
>>Cc: Rik Drummond; Henry Lowe; ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org;
>>henry@emerald.omg.org; andrew@emerald.omg.org; soley@emerald.omg.org
>>Subject: RE: Initial correlation of ebXML Transport requirements with
>>CORBA services
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Henry,
>>Well put.
>>
>>Food 4 thought:
>>
>>I would add to your comments that in the end, commercial transactions for
>>eMarkets
>>over the internet via XML will require functionality that is similar to
>>almost all of the
>>already-thought-out CORBA Services, and Java Enterprise semantics; without
>>an ORB.
>>If you buy into this thought, the intellect of these problems has already
>>been spent,
>>and a logical approach to some of this may be to start with these current
>>programming models
>>and collaboration patterns mapped to an ORBless environment.
>>
>>Hmmmmm,
>>
>>Scott R. Hinkelman
>>IBM Austin
>>Architecture and Development, Industry XML/Java Standards
>>Office: 512-823-8097 TL793-8097
>>Home: 512-930-5675
>>Cell: 512-940-0519
>>srh@us.ibm.com
>>Fax: 512-838-1074
>>
>>
>>
>>Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org> on 12/10/99 11:40:38 AM
>>
>>To:   "Rik Drummond" <drummond@onramp.net>
>>cc:   "Henry Lowe" <hlowe@omg.org>, ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org,
>>      henry@emerald.omg.org, andrew@emerald.omg.org, soley@emerald.omg.org
>>Subject:  RE: Initial correlation of ebXML Transport requirements with
>>      CORBA services
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Rik,
>>
>>>Henry, could you give us some better background on corba and xml. will
you
>>>be converting corba to an xml based mechanism? Best regards, rik
>>
>>No, there are no plans to convert CCORBA to an XML based mechanism,
>>but there is already an active move to make it easier to use CORBA
>>to support XML -- you could do it with what's in CORBA products on
>>the market today treating XML as an octet string or character string.
>>However, the new work, the RFP is called XML/value, will do a better
>>job of it.
>>
>>This is a major reason I'm participating in the Transport & Packing
>>group -- XML needs a transport which provides security (encryption,
>>authentication, non-repudiation and all that good stuff) and also
>>a transport which provides the two phase commit semantics for
>>once-and-onnce-only (which will probably be VERY important to
>>e-commerce as I don't think banks will be too keen on transferring
>>millions of dollars/euros if there is a chance the transport is
>>going to lose or possible replicate the transfer ;-).  CORBA has it
>>now, our specs are open (indeed, we're submitting them to ISO
>>using their PAS process), and the specs are implemented in
>>commercially supported products which are on the market.
>>
>>Information on XML/value is on our web site at
>>http://www.omg.org/techprocess/meetings/schedule/XML_Value_RFP.html
>>As I said, it's new and the list of companies which have turned in
>>a Letter of Intent to submit is on this page (there is definite
>>interest).  We haven't had any submissions yet, but that's not too
>>surprising as the deadline hasn't passed.  For those interested in
>>more detail, there's a link to the RFP itself.
>>
>>On the OMG home page, there is also a pointer to some more info on
>>XML as it relates to OMG -- http://www.omg.org/xml/
>>
>>There are two other areas in which we currently use XML:
>>1. XMI which is an XML based means for texhanging UML models and
>>   other meta data, and
>>2. in our component model where descriptors of components are in
>>   XML.
>>However, this isn't the subject of your question.
>>
>>Hope this helps without being too long.  Glad to answer any further
>>questions.  Sorry about preaching two phase commit transaction
>>processing, but I'm a true believer.  It probably won't be the
>>last time I'll harangue the group on this :-)
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Henry
>>-------------------------------------
>>At 08:47 AM 12/10/1999 -0600, Rik Drummond wrote:
>>>Henry, could you give us some better background on corba and xml. will
you
>>>be converting corba to an xml based mechanism? Best regards, rik
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>[mailto:owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of Henry
>>>Lowe
>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 12:50 PM
>>>To: ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>Cc: henry@emerald.omg.org
>>>Subject: Initial correlation of ebXML Transport requirements with CORBA
>>>services
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>As a possible basis for discussion, attached is a first pass
>>>at correlating the ebXML transport requirements from San Jose
>>>with CORBA services.  There's still work to be done in that
>>>a) I'm not sure I understand all of the requirements, and
>>>b) I need some help from some of the OMG members to ensure
>>>   I get it right.
>>>
>>>But, it is a start and perhaps we can use it on the ConCall to
>>>clarify some of (a) and chat about some of (b).
>>>
>>>Has a time and number been fixed for the Call?  I have the
>>>feeling I've been missing some in-coming e-mail (of course,
>>>that's one of those things that's hard to pin down ;-)
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>Henry
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>