RE: Messaging Sequencing (was: TPA and ebXML Header question)

[Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>]

Dale,

[Note: I did not send this to ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org as I'm not 
a member of that list and it just bounces.]

By "three separate businesses" it sounds like you mean 3 separate 
legal entities which do not share a computer.  Yep, that is the
distributed case I didn't touch -- trickier.

Actually, I think that is out or scope for TRP (my opinion) but 
would be interested in hearing what others think.  

But I agree with you that the business process folk should come 
along and tell us about these things if they are expecting us 
to provide a service to do it for them.  ASAP!!  They have it 
written up?
<flame-resistant armour on>
I venture that this type of service would at least require a 
well defined service interface, if not a real API :-)
</flame-resistant armour on>

Best regards,
Henry
------------------------------------
At 02:07 PM 10/19/2000 -0400, Moberg, Dale wrote:
>
>
>[snip]
>> 
>> On your second point, for the example, a separate MIME part 
>> for each of "in stock, tracking id, and credit approved" 
>> messages would items in the manifest for each will do the trick 
>> without the MS having to add XML to bundle the three together.
>> Of course there are other ways.  If you have a generic service 
>> interface, you'd want parameters for each manifest item.  This 
>> of course, assumes the three departments that handle these 
>> three requests are all sharing the same node -- the distributed 
>> case gets a bit trickier ;-)
>       
>Actually, the example I had in  mind had three separate businesses
>handling inventory, shipping and credit checks so that three
>separate messages would go out. That is how the BP process "forks"
>(into concurrent message streams) that can then respond back to
>the same waiting node (where the processes re-join )
>
>As far as how less smimple they can get, I guess we need to
>get the BP folks to roll out their wares.!!