RE: more on the FW: Draft RegRep and TRP transport harmonization

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

I agree with David completely. SOAP is irrelevant in this issue. I don't
see what the issue is
here; there will likely be other users of TRP that desire the same
messaging function
(sync) as RS. In my mind there is nothing *special* about RS at all.

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



"Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 09/21/2000 12:42:01 AM

To:   Nicholas Kassem <Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com>, Rik Drummond
      <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>, Ebxml Transport
      <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:   Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com>
Subject:  RE: more on the FW: Draft RegRep and TRP transport harmonization



Nick

I think there is a real need for reliable synchronous responses as I
described in an earlier email. The essentials of the case was where you
have
a SME using something like Quickbooks, that wants to use HTTP to call a
remote service to do a payment reliably. It doesn't have an HTTP server so
it HAS to get the response from the payment service on the HTTP Response.

OK I know SOAP does something similar but it doesn't, yet, do it reliably.

What we should be able to do in ebXML is have a single spec that covers:
headers, envelopes and reliable messaging that can work both synchronously
and asynchronously.

Opening the door (or not) for SOAP is irrelevant. It's meeting a real
business need that is important and we *need* reliable synchronous
messaging.

Just my opinion ... and I hope I haven't misunderstood your email ...

David


-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Kassem [mailto:Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 1:06 PM
To: Rik Drummond; Ebxml Transport
Cc: Farrukh Najmi
Subject: Re: more on the FW: Draft RegRep and TRP transport
harmonization


At 11:58 PM 9/18/2000 -0500, Rik Drummond wrote:
>rr needs synch services as noted below from trp.  best regards, rik
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com]
>Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 11:58 PM
>To: Rik Drummond
>Subject: Re: Draft RegRep and TRP transport harmonization
>
>
>
>Rik,
>
>You are right that #2 is more relevant to TRP since all Registry Services
>(RS)
>are accessed over ebXML TRP
>
>So RS is your customer.
>
>Please note that the one important issue TRP needs to keep in mind is that
>there
>are some TRP interactions
>between RS clients and RS that need to be synchronous in nature. I assume

Could you clarify this ? What makes an RS client so special that it needs a
sync. transport service ? This is in conflict with what I have said
publicly and opens the door to SOAP.

Nick