RE: Test Indicator Issue

[Rik Drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>]

the test flag in this case would only be to test the mhs envelop and ebxml
headers. it would not be used to test the syntax of the application data as
the test flag in the edi stuff is done via the translators... because of
this i like dick's way better..... best regards, rik

-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Robert (GXS) [mailto:Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 9:23 AM
To: Nikola Stojanovic; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Test Indicator Issue


Yes there are other ways to indicate a 'test' message, two of which are
referenced below.  But I contend that these other ways reduce the
parallelism of the test system to a greater extent than does a test flag.
Use of a test flag is a proven practice. So my advice is add the test flag -
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Cheers,
       Bob Miller

-----Original Message-----
From: Nikola Stojanovic [mailto:nhomest1@twcny.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 8:57 AM
To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: First issue [was: Outstanding Issues - LONG please red to
end}


<Dick Brooks>
There are others means to indicate a "test" versus "production" message
exchange. For example:
- separate production and test ebxml handler URL's (mailboxes, FTP sites,
etc.)
- separate production and test Party ID's
</Dick Brooks>

Makes sense. I agree.

Nikola