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

[Nicholas Kassem <Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com>]

At 10:42 PM 9/20/2000 -0700, Burdett, David wrote:
>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.

Actually I felt the use case you posted was assembled such that there could 
have only been a single answer to the scenario you presented! Be that as it 
may. I don't think we disagree on the need for sync responses. Where I 
think we part company is in jumbling transport level responses, MS level 
responses, and Business level responses. I'm just not convinced that sync 
or async behavior at the network transport layer should drive the 
programming model at the business application layer.

Now I know in the most trivial of "client/Server" style interactions all of 
these layering issues can be ignored and one can reduce TRP into a 
monolithic piece of code. IMHO, once we think through ebXML RM & MS in the 
context of a consistent application programming model then my contention is 
that ebXML TRP is more than yet another way of doing Client/Server 
programming.  I don't think ebXML business components should have to be 
re-written depending on what type of communication infrastructure they 
happen to be deployed on at any given time.

Nick