Re: TPA and ebXML Header question

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

DW,

Isn't the confirm you are talking about part of the business process?  It
seems to me that you want the business process to say "I got it" rather
than having the messaging service say "I was able to parse it OK and passed
it on to the business process but I it isn't my job to know if the business
process actually got it or fumbled the ball."

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



David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>@compuserve.com> on 10/03/2000
06:46:02 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com>, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org,
      ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  Re: TPA and ebXML Header question



Message text written by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
>I believe there is a strong case for an optimistic
protocol: send only "checked not ok" and let the business-level response
imply that the message was delivered to the application with no error.

Regards,
Marty<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Marty - this will depend on the business workflow use case.  Some
will require an explicit confirm - before proceeding to the next step.

We should support both models - but default to
'delivery accepted without confirm'.

DW.