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

["Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

Nick/Rik

I think this is an issue to resolve next week at the F2F. 

But to sum up I think that:
1. There are some valid business applications and software environments
(e.g. client/server) that demand both reliable messaging and a synchronous
response as in the the use case I described.
2. If we accept that reliable messaging over a synchronous transport
protocol is a requirement (do we?) then I can't see any option other than
combining the business response and the message ack in the same message (is
there an alternative?)
3. I see synchronous and asynchronous responses to a message as valid
business alternatives from which an application designer should be able to
choose - we shouldn't force them to work only one way (as SOAP does and we
*might* do).
4. I can't see why asynch and synch reliable messaging should be handled in
a fundamentally different way and therefore we should plan support for both
now. I think my earlier emails showed that this was straight forward.

Best wishes and see y'all next week ...

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Kassem [mailto:Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 6:27 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