RE: no synch vs asynch indicator in CPP/CPA

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

Forwarding received email.

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

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



"Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com> on 01/23/2001 04:17:07 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:
Subject:  RE: no synch vs asynch indicator in CPP/CPA



Marty,
Sorry to butt in but speaking as a business person, sometimes it's
necessary
to include "things" in a business agreement/process that sometimes doesn't
logically make any technical sense, but those "things" need to be
technically managed.
In the traditional EDI world today, it can easily occur that a trading
partner makes it a contractual obligation to do something or other; for
their own internal reasons.

There's a cleaner world of logical technical architecture, and then there's
the real world; and businesses sometimes do the darndest things. But it is
business reality and it's not going away; well till we retire all
merchandising and sales folks !!

I think you are correct, and if the business process is capturing the
business requirements then ...
Thanks
Dave


ps. was there ever any sign of life on indicating that compressing the msg
payload needed to be enabled or not. I thought TRP was struggling with the
"is this a business need and is there really a problem and what about
digital signatures .. ?" question. Them there XML files are biggggggg.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 12:30 PM
> To: Duane Nickull
> Cc: christopher ferris; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: no synch vs asynch indicator in CPP/CPA
>
>
>
> I may be repeating what I just said in my response to Chris
> but let me try
> it again.
>
> The question is, why would Sync ever be used?  Possibilities:
>
>    1.  For whatever reason, the business process decides that it must
>    receive a sync reply to a request, so it specifies sync in
> one way or
>    another and the result is that the other party is forced
> provide a sync
>    receive capability, meaning that it must receive requests
> with HTTP and
>    send the replies synchronously (in the response to the
> POST). An example
>    of this case is where the BP that sends requests is a
> browser and has no
>    async receive capability.
>
>    2. The BP that receives requests has no capability for sending
>    asynchronous replies. But this is backwards.  If it is receiving
>    requests, it has server-type function and surely is
> capable of sending
>    asynchronous responses.
>
> Notice also that the delivery channel defines receive capabilities.
> However for such a delivery channel a sync/async attribute is really
> describing response-sending capabilities, not receive
> capabilities.  I'm
> not sure this matters but there may be a comprehensibility
> issue for the
> standard here.
>
> My conclusion is that it is the BP which cares whether the response is
> synchronous or asynchronous although the only obvious example
> I can think
> of is where the BP is actually a browser.  I'm not sure
> whether that makes
> it an implementation matter but it's still the BP characteristics that
> count.
>
> One CPP-structural problem with putting the sync/async choice
> inside the BP
> is that it is not clear to me how to convey that information
> to the rest of
> the CPP or CPA, which is  a separate document.  Can the value of an
> attribute in the BP document be conveyed back to the CPP or
> CPA and used to
> choose the correct delivery channel or is this a case where
> the CPP writer
> has to know that certain messages must be synchronous and set
> the service
> bindings accordingly?
>
> 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
> **************************************************************
> ***********************
>
>
>
> Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com> on 01/23/2001 02:46:41 PM
>
> To:   christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
> cc:   "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>
> Subject:  Re: no synch vs asynch indicator in CPP/CPA
>
>
>
>
>
> christopher ferris wrote:
>
> > The distinction as I see it is that the BP should be
> > independent of an implementation, but an implementation
> > that supports a BP would be engineered so as to provide for
> > either response pattern according to its needs.
> >
> > Comments?
> >>>>>>
> Chris:
>
> YOu make some very good points and I fully concur that the
> synch/asynch
> details belong in the CP*
>
> The BP should remain agnostic to certain delivery details.
>
> Duane Nickull
>
>
>