RE: Ack Message Payload??

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

I was also trying to avoid TRP scope creep by trying to relegate
business-specific information to a business process header.

I agree that if a business process is so simple-minded that all it needs to
signal an event is to state  the basic information in the message header so
be it.  I am suspicious that life is never that simple, however.  In any
case, what I suggested requires no knowledge on the part of the messaging
service.  There is a payload container which has only a business process
header, and all the specifics of the events are in there.

There is a minor TP issue here:  If a business message can consist only of
the messaging service information, then we have to make the tag that states
the business document schema have cardinality 0 or 1.  No big deal but that
becomes another thing that the parser can't validate.

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



"Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 10/31/2000 02:56:09 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Patil, Sanjay" <Spatil@netfish.com>
cc:   "'David RR Webber'" <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>, Christopher Ferris
      <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, ebxml transport
      <ebXML-Transport@lists.ebxml.org>, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  RE: Ack Message Payload??



I think "No payload" means there "ebXML Payload Container" i.e. no MIME
part
that holds the payload. You will know this from looking at the manifest
which will be empty. We do not need any fuller definition from the TRP
point
of view.

If I go back to the original definition of the header from the overview and
requirements spec it is defined as ...

"A Message Header is an XML construct that contains the additional data
that
needs to be associated with the Documents in a message so that they can be
sent to and successfully processed by a Party."

I think that is sufficient and we should use this definition to guide what
goes in (or stays out of) the header.

We are awfully fond of scope creep to my mind. Let's keep TRP simple.

David
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 11:36 AM
To: Patil, Sanjay
Cc: 'David RR Webber'; Christopher Ferris; ebxml transport;
ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Ack Message Payload??



What does "no payload" mean?

I would like to postulate that a business process will require a business
process header, which contains control information specific to that
business process.  The business-process header is the header of the payload
of the Message-service message and is separate from the messaging-service
header.

If this postulate is accepted, then I suggest that an event could be
represented by a business-process header with no business-process payload.
From the viewpoint of the messaging service, there would formally be a
payload.  I suggest further that any header information needed to support
an event belongs in the business-process header, not the messaging service
header.  This is consistent with good layering design and keeps the
messaging service out of the business of having special functions for
particular kinds of business process messages.

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

*********



"Patil, Sanjay" <Spatil@netfish.com> on 10/31/2000 02:22:14 PM

To:   "'David RR Webber'" <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>, Christopher Ferris
      <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, ebxml transport
      <ebXML-Transport@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:
Subject:  RE: Ack Message Payload??




If ebXMLHeader is not enough to identify the message
completely and requires some dummy payload, we need
to work more on the ebXMLHeader.

Relying on dummy payloads for unambiguity would lead to
ambiguous specs of the TRP, not a good idea.

I am for not having payload when none is required.
Business Processes should handle events (no payload)
as well as normal business documents.

thanks,
Sanjay Patil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------
Work Phone: 408 350 9619
http://www.netfish.com


-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 6:46 AM
To: Christopher Ferris; ebxml transport
Subject: Re: Ack Message Payload??


Message text written by Christopher Ferris
>
Regardless, I think that a BP-level ACK *should* have
a payload, even if it is a minimal one like:
        <status>OK</status>

It SHALL have a MessageType="Normal" and it SHALL have
a ServiceInterface and Action appropriate to its purpose
at least for the current state of affairs.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Chris,

Agreed.   Getting back an empty transaction is too ambiguous.

DW.