RE: Issue: How CPA is used in the spec

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

Sorry to keep this running. I am sure I am missing something
in the motivation for the behaviour that is described.

I have some troubles in understanding how this kind of
thing could help in granting consistency and interoperability
between different software implementations, though.

Knowing how the other side behaves, forces a slow-down in the
process and re-introduces the dependency on errors. One
should cross his fingers hoping his software does not
deliver something wrong since the effect would be unpredictable.

/stefano

» -----Original Message-----
» From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@zolera.com]
» Sent: 14 March 2001 06:03
» To: Stefano POGLIANI
» Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
» Subject: Re: Issue: How CPA is used in the spec
»
»
» > I understand the agreement you have reached as something like:
» > "if something is wrong, then the behaviour is undetermined"
»
» Sort of.  It says
» 	If you knowingly send a message that conflicts with the CPA, the
» results are undefined so do not do it unless you know what the other
» side is going to do.
»
» Some ebXML members have current networks that allow individual messages
» to override the general agreement.  The current text is therefore a
» workable compromise.
» 	/r$
»
» ------------------------------------------------------------------
» To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
» "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org
»