David,
In this case, where the MSH doesn't support ebXML RM protocol,
you cannot send a message with OnceAndOnlyOnce semantics. It
MUST send back an error "Not Supported".
My point is that the RM protocol is hop-to-hop and the end-to-end
semantics are achieved by having each hop be reliable (whether
using ebXML RM or something else).
Think of it this way:
(routing app)
| |
A[eb] <-> [eb]B B[MQ] <-> [MQ]C
In this case, the B intermediary is reliable and supports
both ebXML RM *and* MQ series. Whether these are separate
instances or the same instance with multiple capabilities
is irrelevant. It may be distributed for that matter. The
routing app needs to be reliable as well (just as any other
app) because it should ONLY mark the message as having been
processed if it has successfully processed it.
We can be more explicit regarding what responsibilities are
at an intermediary node here, but IMHO, there really is no
difference here between a routing "application" and an endpoint
business "application" in that the MSH has a responsibility to
ensure that the "application" processes the message.
The B node above could all be a single piece of software,
operating as a routing intermediary (which would certainly make
it more robust), but we have nothing to say on the matter
as far as our specification is concerned.
I don't think that we need to address the situation where two
adjacent nodes don't support the same RM protocol. That would
be (IMHO) no different that an SMTP node trying to foist the SMTP
protocol on an HTTP server. They speak different protocols
and can never interact directly without some manner of gateway.
Cheers,
Chris
David Fischer wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> What do you mean by unreliable? I will agree there is no unreliable IM but
> there can be an IM which does not support ebXML RM (e.g. uses MQSeries instead).
> This is the whole point of the reliableMessageMethod parameter.
>
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group.
>
>
