Re: RM Group Definitions

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Nicholas Kassem wrote:
> 
> At 02:01 PM 8/30/2000 -0400, mwsachs@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >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.
> 
> You are absolutely right Marty. One notion that helps keep me on an even
> keel (some would argue I capsized a long time ago) is to think only in
> terms of asynchronous messaging at the BP level. Period. Now at the MS

Amen!

> level the transport may be synchronous or asynchronous (that's a
> private  implementation/configuration detail) but the programming model at
> the BP level is always the same. IMO, maintaining a consistent programming
> model will be key to adoption of  ebXML TR&P. If we tie the programming
> model to the messaging choreography we may well be setting ourselves up to
> fail. It's entirely practical to have a request-response application
> protocol that enables an application  to work through it's business logic
> in a consistent and well defined way. So, as for the notion of "grouping",
> I have yet to see a convincing use-case (without significant hand-waving)
> that justifies the complexity. I would very much appreciate it if someone

I agree.

> could post such a use-case, making a clear distinction between the MS view
> and the BP view. Thanks in advance.
> 
> Regards,
> Nick

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