[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Messaging Service Comment
Dick/All, During last weeks call, Gordon agreed to develop a strawdog for a UML model of the "Service Interface" which he would submit to the list for review prior to the f2f in Dallas. I also agreed that we could devote a couple of hours for Gordon to present the model to the rest of the team which would be followed by a brief discussion. The goal of this would be to garner support for a new subteam to be formed which would continue the work begun by Gordon. Chris Dick Brooks wrote: > > Scott, > > You're right, I remember agreeing to the use of UML for consistency with > other groups, but I'm not sure there was a hum of consensus for this > approach. > > Rik/Chris, could we have an agenda item on this weeks con-call to address > the abstract service interface issue. > > Thanks, > > Dick Brooks > Group 8760 > 110 12th Street North > Birmingham, AL 35203 > dick@8760.com > 205-250-8053 > Fax: 205-250-8057 > http://www.8760.com/ > > InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com] > > Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 5:45 PM > > To: Dick Brooks > > Cc: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM; Christopher Ferris; > > ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org > > Subject: RE: Messaging Service Comment > > > > > > Hi Dick, > > I was not under the impression that was firm. There was also discussion > > about using OMG IDL. > > Maybe we need to resurface for a firm concensous. > > Thanks, > > Scott Hinkelman > > Senior Software Engineer, IBM Austin > > Emerging Technologies, SWG > > 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519) > > srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074 > > > > > > > > Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com> on 08/27/2000 04:58:19 PM > > > > Please respond to dick@8760.com > > > > To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > > cc: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, > > ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org > > Subject: RE: Messaging Service Comment > > > > > > > > Marty, > > > > I believe the TR&P group decided, during a con-call two weeks ago, to > > define > > the MS service interface in UML. This should be sufficiently abstract to > > allow implementers the freedom to implement in whatever form they desire. > > > > Scott, I think you were on the con-call when this was decided, did I > > remember this correctly? > > > > Dick Brooks > > Group 8760 > > 110 12th Street North > > Birmingham, AL 35203 > > dick@8760.com > > 205-250-8053 > > Fax: 205-250-8057 > > http://www.8760.com/ > > > > InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: mwsachs@us.ibm.com [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 3:40 PM > > > To: srh@us.ibm.com > > > Cc: Christopher Ferris; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org > > > Subject: Re: Messaging Service Comment > > > > > > > > > List-Unsubscribe: > > > <mailto:ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=unsubscribe> > > > List-Archive: <http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport> > > > List-Help: <http://lists.ebxml.org/doc/email-manage.html>, > > > <mailto:ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=help> > > > > > > This discussion relates to the architectural interface between the > > > BPspecification and the Messaging Service specification (TRP) which has > > to > > > be somewhere in the ebXML standards in order to ensure that the BP and > > TRP > > > specifications mesh together property. The argument has been whether or > > > not you want to express that interface as an API at all or rather as a > > > simple list of functions that BP and TRP assume of each other to enable > > > information to flow through the stack. Arguments also relate to whether > > > that interface should be normative or informative (non-normative). In > > > other standards, "informative" often wins because implementers > > don't want > > > to be bound to an interface which in fact may be buried inside their > > > product and not visible to anyone or anything else. Some > > standards use a > > > conceptual request-response notation which provides a compact > > > representation of the information which has to flow between the two > > > adjacent layers. > > > > > > 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 > > > 08/25/2000 09:34 AM > > > > > > To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS > > > cc: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, > > > ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org > > > From: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > > > Subject: Re: Messaging Service Comment (Document link: Martin > > W. Sachs) > > > > > > I agree with Chris. There are other appropriate places for APIs to be > > > defined or live outside > > > of ebXML. One obvious and successful example is that of SOAP 1.1, > > > where the > > > SOAP spec > > > defines a pure XML wire format, and the Apache Project now owns > > a popular > > > Java API (SOAP4J) > > > submitted as open source from IBM. This model appears to have benefit to > > > the industry > > > in whole. > > > > > > Scott Hinkelman > > > Senior Software Engineer, IBM Austin > > > Emerging Technologies, SWG > > > 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519) > > > srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074 > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS on 08/24/2000 05:04:32 PM > > > > > > To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> > > > cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org > > > Subject: Re: Messaging Service Comment > > > > > > > > > > > > In the IBM tpaML proposal and the prototype run-time, the name > > resolution > > > is in the TPA itself. Each party is identified by the logical > > name (e.g. > > > DUNS number). In the communication section, the communication > > address is > > > given and there is an ID REF to the tag that contains the > > logical name of > > > the party. > > > > > > 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 > > > ****************************************************************** > > > ******************* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> on 08/23/2000 02:24:08 PM > > > > > > To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS > > > cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org > > > Subject: Re: Messaging Service Comment > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way, I concur with Marty's assessment. However, it would > > > seem to me that rather than an "interface" definition (eg API) > > > that it is important that we ensure that all of the requisite > > > information is present, either in the headers themselves or > > > in the associated TPA to enable an implementation to perform > > > the necessary magic. > > > > > > An example, the use of a "logical" To address. This must be mapped > > > to an appropriate URL (for HTTP), email address (for SMTP), etc. > > > We shouldn't need to provide an interface to a name resolution > > > service (such as DNS or THTTP). This is strictly implementation > > > detail. We shouldn't even suggest where this name resolution should > > > take place (within the MS or within the communication service > > > implementation. > > > > > > It would seem to me that the appropriate place for this sort of > > > thing might be OMG, Apache or as a JCP JSR (JAXP?) for Java > > > implementations. > > > I would expect that most providers of an ebXML TR&P MS would provide > > > both the MS and the CS (communication service adaptors). If someone > > > were to develop a standalone MS with a well defined API for the CS > > > adaptors, > > > that might be a good thing, but I don't believe that it is in our > > > charter to do so. > > > > > > The POC demos are providing us with valuable feedback as to whether > > > we're providing all of the requisite bits in the headers and/or TPA > > > such that a provider can effectively develop an interoperable > > > implementation. I think that thus far, we're on track in that regard. > > > If not, then we must work with them to understand what their perceived > > > needs are and figure out how they can and should be mapped to either > > > the headers or the TPA. > > > > > > As for the service interface between the MS and the "application", > > > I feel that too is outside our charter. Yes, it would be a good thing > > > if there were a standard by which all MS implementations were developed, > > > but again, OMG, Apache or elsewhere would seem to me to be a more > > suitable > > > choice for this manner of standards development. > > > > > > Possibly, we should be working with one of these (or other) > > organizations > > > towards > > > this end. However, let's not lose sight of the prime objective here. > > > The interoperability we seek with ebXML is focused on inter-enterprise > > > interoperability. This is acheived by defining the headers and the TPA, > > > not a set of APIs which would allow for an enterprise to exchange > > > implementations > > > without having to do much in the way of reengineering. YES, that is a > > good > > > thing to have (eventually) but it is NOT a requirement for enabling > > > interoperable exchange of messages between enterprises, small or large. > > > > > > My $0.02, > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > mwsachs@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Again, sorry about the deadline. This comment belongs on the work > > list, > > > > not as a correction to the current version. > > > > > > > > Some of the dicussions about interrelations between Reliable Messaging > > > and > > > > transport protocols point up the need to state the assumptions about > > the > > > > transport function in some manner. One possibility is some kind of > > > > definition of a conceptual interface between the Messaging Service and > > > the > > > > transport function. It's fine to say that the messaging service is > > > > agnostic to the transport protocol but in real life, the Messaging > > > Service > > > > run-time must interact with the transport run-time. Design of the > > > messaging > > > > service protocol must be with the understanding of what goes on in the > > > most > > > > likely transports. > > > > > > > > Since it is highly likely that an implementation will include both the > > > > messaging service and the transport function, it may be sufficient to > > > > express the interactions as a series of informative notes (or an > > > > informative appendix) rather than as a formal interface > > definition. The > > > > important point is that the assumptions have to be stated to ensure > > that > > > > the messaging service and transport function will work together > > > correctly. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > ****************************************************************** > > > ******************* > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Christopher Ferris - Enterprise Architect > > > _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063 > > > _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM > > > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ Sun Microsystems, Mailstop: UBUR03-313 > > > _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Christopher Ferris - Enterprise Architect _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063 _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ Sun Microsystems, Mailstop: UBUR03-313 _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC