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

[Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

The sync or non-sync nature of the transport level should not drive the
business process programming model.  However the business process
programming model might set a requirement for sync at the transport level
because an implementation might not be capable of asynchronous messaging.
In the tpaML proposal, sync or async can be specified for each action.
Specifying sync requires that the TPA provide a synchronous transport
binding (at this time, only HTTP can be used).

I agree that we are jumbling levels.  This is because so far the mind set
in TRP has been to ignore transport. I am studiously refusing to use the
word "agnostic" because I firmly believe that there is a transport level :
-)

We need to start focusing on likely transports and how their
characteristics might interact with the MS.


Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Nicholas Kassem <Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com> on 09/21/2000 09:27:22 PM

To:   "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
cc:   Ebxml Transport <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
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