RE: Test Indicator Issue

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

Dick,

Yes, DB copy is easier. And yes, a recipient could use the same database if
it were preloaded with dual sets of URL's/PartyIDs.  But I feel you have
missed the point about having dual sets of URL's (or PartyID's).  Some piece
of software has to insert the URL into the outbound message.  The logic
required to maintain pairs of URLs and get the right one inserted into the
message seems inherently more complex than a simple test flag. Note also
that testing is typically a two way street (e.g., query / response), so both
ends have to deal with the dual URL problem.

I am aware that some EDI players choose to use separate EDI addresses
(PartyIDs) for test purposes.  I've no idea whether they also set the test
flag in the EDI interchange.  I certainly do not mean to exclude the use of
separate URLs and/or PartyIDs for those who choose to use them.

Cheers,
        Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@8760.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 4:22 PM
To: Miller, Robert (GXS); ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Test Indicator Issue


Bob, see response inline:

>
> 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 production to test, the changes
> have to be
> re-introduced.
>

If I understand your point correctly you're saying that by having a test
flag you're able to maintain the same data in both a test and production
database and can easily copy data between the two, correct?

If so, then I think one could say the same thing when two separate URL's are
used, for example:

http://test.company.com/ebxmlhandler

and

http://production.company.com/ebxmlhandler

Both URL's could share a single trading partner database instance, but use
separate processing logic on the application payload.


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 10:08 AM
> To: 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>
>
> 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
> >