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

[Rik Drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>]

i agree with nick... rik

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Kassem [mailto:Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 8:27 PM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: Ebxml Transport
Subject: RE: more on the FW: Draft RegRep and TRP transport
harmonization


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