RE: RM Group Definitions

[mwsachs@us.ibm.com]

Normally, when a party needs to know whether a message was received before
sending another, they use a request-response protocol at the business
application level.  Those are the requests and responses laid out in the
business protocol section of the tpaML proposal.

Using the RM protocol for this kind of flow control is definitely mixing
the functions of the MS and application levels.

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 Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 08/29/2000 03:53:22 PM

To:   "'Christopher Ferris'" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, richard drummond
      <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>
cc:   ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  RE: RM Group Definitions



Application level specifying a "grouping" might be business requirement as
an application might not want to send out a message until it **knows** that
an earlier message has been delivered. In this case, the application /
business process would have to let the messaging service know when to end a
"group".

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 6:43 AM
To: richard drummond
Cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: RM Group Definitions


I agree. It isn't clear to me where the notion of BP-level
or application-level grouping came from as I haven't had
an opportunity to read ALL of the messages sent during my
vacation, but this seems to me to be something we should
steer well clear of.

Chris

richard drummond wrote:
>
> i don't see grouping messages as being a key point of a reliable
messaging
> spec. yes it is important for performance... but not for reliable
messaging.
> that is why i think we should forgo it on this round and concentrate on
the
> rm part of things.... best regards, rik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Hughes [mailto:jfh@fs.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 3:41 AM
> To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: RM Group Definitions
>
> Then we need to come to a quick resolution on this point in the group. If
> message grouping (by this I mean sending only one MSH-level ACK for a
group
> of reliable messages) is not allowed, then it greatly simplifies the RM
> spec... I suggest we carefully consider this before taking the decision
for
> this level of simplicity may yield an unacceptable solution.
>
> Jim
>
> At 03:47 PM 8/28/2000 -0500, richard drummond wrote:
> >i don't think grouping is appropriate at this time. we need to keep it
> >simple for the first round of ebxml... that is that though the end of
may
> >next year..... rik

--
    _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/    _/ 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