RE: [ebxml-cppa] Issue: should BusinessTransactionCharacteristics be made zero or one in future CPPA schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)

Steve,

 

Clearly we cannot remove them entirely!  They are needed
(vital!).

 

I think the idea was to allow them to be null if someone wanted that
specific option - right now you have to put something as they are
required.  This especially effects cpp - I guess this would be
functionally like saying "undefined".   Of course really what
we need to also consider is making it context driven selections -
because that's really at the root of this...

 

The xinclude approach may allow us to finesse this all anyway?

 

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE:
[ebxml-cppa] Issue: should
BusinessTransactionCharacteristics be
made zero or one in future CPPA
schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)
From:
"steve capell" <>
Date: Tue, May 23,
2006 7:05 pm
To: "'David RR Webber (XML)'" <>,
"'Dale Moberg'"
<>
Cc: "'OASIS
ebXML CPPA TC'" <>

I would be
very much against removing the business transaction characteristics
from the CPA.  Certainly they are available from the BPSS but that
is not partner specific.  It is a common scenario that the BPSS
says (for example, time to ack recpt is 2h) but a specific bilateral
relationship wants to either tighten it or relax it.
 

 

In our
implementation we take transactions characteristics from the BPSS and
override them (if different) with characteristics from the
CPA.

 

I agree about
the difficulties of making a CPA from two CPP’s.  Making a
CPA from a CPA template is much easier and works well for
us.

 

Regards,

 

Steve
Capell

Red
Wahoo

www.redwahoo.com

p: + 61 2
94383700

m:+ 61 410
437854

f:  + 61
2 94392738

 

This email
message and any accompanying attachments may contain information that
is confidential and is subject to legal privilege. If you are not the
intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy
this message or attachments. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this message.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be
the views of Red Wahoo Pty. Ltd.

 

Before opening
any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.  We do
not accept any liability for loss or damage which may arise from your
receipt of this e-mail.

 

From: David RR
Webber (XML) [mailto:] 
Sent: 24 May 2006 07:59
To: Dale Moberg
Cc: OASIS ebXML CPPA
TC
Subject: RE:
[ebxml-cppa] Issue: should BusinessTransactionCharacteristics be made
zero or one in future CPPA schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)

 

Dale,

 

Flattening, aka simplifying the CPPA / CPA
would be a huge plus (SimpleCPA?!). 

 

Even though people use editors to build these
things - making them easier to visualize would definately aid adoption
and use.

 

The notion of taking two CPP's and gluing them
together somehow to make a CPA is nevertheless fraught IMHO.  It's
never really worked well - in part because of all the gnarly refID
constructs to name one challenge.

 

Removing the BusinessTransactionCharacteristics completely would definately
make it easier to align just the communications part of the
arrangement.  You'd still need to retrofit your business
transactions - but as you note - if you referenced a BPSS instead -
that would provide the road map to
those.

 

Also - establishing the notion of profiles and
templates for common configuration sets, is another key
need.

 

In fact - if we could somehow break the CPA down
into more sub-atomic parts - that could be included....and also
therefore making things more
pluggable...

 

And I completely agree that retain 100% V2.0
backward-ness is not a critical
factor.

 

Just brainstorming here - and being completely
radical -  I'd like to see something like
this:

 

<CPA>

  <Header> <include
location="/cpa/myheader-template.xml"/>
</Header>

  <CommsSetup><include
location="/cpa/tomcat/myComms-template.xml"/>
</CommsSetup>

  <Security><include
location="/cpa/ssl/mySSL-template.xml"/>
</Security>

  <Transactions><include
location="/cpa/UBL/myBPSS-trans-template.xml"/>
</Transactions>

  <ErrorHandling><include
location="/cpa/myHandler-template.xml"/>
</ErrorHandling>

  <Signals><include
location="/cpa/mySignals-template.xml"/>
</Signals>

  <Extensions><include
location="/wsdl/myExtensions-template.xml"/>
</Extensions>

</CPA>

 

and of course each template would be reflect the
original CPA syntax and stuff relating to each
part.

 

Bit too
radical?!?

 

DW

 

-------- Original Message
--------
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Issue: should
BusinessTransactionCharacteristics
be made zero or one in future
CPPA schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)
From: "Dale Moberg"
<>
Date: Tue, May 23, 2006 5:15
pm
To: "OASIS ebXML CPPA TC"
<>

Many months ago several
people (especially Hima) noted that BusinessTransactionCharacteristics
is sometimes unnecessary and in general can complicate the checks for
an acceptable compatibility between CPPs when forming a
CPA.

 

When using BPSS (especially
2.0), and when not changing any values from those in the BPSS instance,
the BusinessTransactionCharacteristics attributes end up repeating
information in the BPSS instance. In addition, the QOS parameters
needed for a message service are generally independently documented in
specialized sections of the DocExchange element or in the Transport, so
the “abstract” features of the BTC tend to just summarize
the real configuration
details.

 

Since we are trying to wrap
up changes, errata, and ebMS 3.0 support in the CPPA specification, I
would like the TC to review this optionality issue and decide whether
we should change the cardinality to allow omission of the element when
it is not really needed. (and document when that
is).

 

I recall this issue was
raised when considering how to flatten the XML hierarchy of CPPs and
CPAs (which most agree would make it simpler to read if not to use!). I
think flattening could be done but it would be a departure from
conserving the structure of CPPA 2.0 instances. Since CPPA instances
are probably headed toward being something that are never
“seen” in editors, but only imported and exported by
software, flattening is not something I have heard much about lately.
If you think we should reconsider this for the transition to committee
draft from editor draft, please discuss on the
list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php