RE: Test Indicator Issue

["Miller, Robert (GXS)" <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>]

Chris,

My ballot option two reads:

      2 - Application (MSH MUST pass the message to the "test application")
          (The mechanics of how it does so is implementation dependent)

which is where I cast my vote.  If you really feel your option 2 is
appropriate to ballot, then I ask that a runoff be held if none of the three
gathers a majority.  
And of course, if any ballots come in with hanging or dimpled chad, we'll
have to have a recount.

Cheers,
        Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 11:52 AM
To: Miller, Robert (GXS)
Cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: Test Indicator Issue


I'm getting the sense that there seems to be some
consensus on the need for a test indicator, but that
the scope of its use/intent seems to be at issue.

	1 - MSH only (MUST NOT pass message to "application")
	2 - undefined (MSH MAY pass message to "application"
		along with test indicator and allow application
		to figure out what to do)

Have I captured this sense correctly?

Can we agree to have the vote on this aspect?

Cheers,

Chris

"Miller, Robert (GXS)" wrote:
> 
> Dick,
> 
> The tables which select the URL to which to deliver the payloads, whether
> these tables be in the application code on in some middleware, would have
to
> differ between the production system and the test system.  And there might
> be dozens of URL's each of which needs both a production and a development
> entry.  And the tables might be stored in the same database as other
tables,
> so when a database is copied from prodcution to test, the changes have to
be
> re-introduced.
> 
> Cheers,
>         Bob
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@8760.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 9:56 AM
> To: Miller, Robert (GXS); Nikola Stojanovic;
> ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: Test Indicator Issue
> 
> Bob,
> 
> I don't understand how separate test/production URL's does the following:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Dick Brooks
> Group 8760
> 110 12th Street North
> Birmingham, AL 35203
> dick@8760.com
> 205-250-8053
> Fax: 205-250-8057
> http://www.8760.com/
> 
> InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
> 
> > -----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
> >
> >
> > List-Unsubscribe:
> >  <mailto:ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=unsubscribe>
> > List-Archive: <http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport>
> > List-Help: <http://lists.ebxml.org/doc/email-manage.html>,
> >  <mailto:ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=help>
> >
> > 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
> >