RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: [Norton AntiSpam] [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















legalxml-courtfiling message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: [Norton AntiSpam] [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'




From: 
To: 
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:43:42 -0700






Title: Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'



>> The complexity of managing the many-to-many communications model 
is significantly more difficult than the many to one and would require that the 
update of the users also include the update of all the Filing Assembly MDEs 
which I anticipate after the standard begins will increase to hundreds per 
court. <<
 
If each attorney has, what is 
essentially a stand-alone FilingApplication (with built-in serviceMDE 
functions), that must be recognized as individual MDEs, then, the 
'hub' approach is certainly advantageous.
 
I agree that if the system were to 
include hundreds of serviceMDEs, then a 'service hub' should be implemented 
(hosted by the court, or otherwise).
 
** But, that's not what we are 
debating here. **
There is a fine point in this 
discussion that is occasionally get muddled.
 
Some are thinking that we 
must support two technical models, because we have identified two 
possible implementations:
 
The 'hub' variation of
implementation does not demand two technical 
models.
 

    Using Model B: 
The court MUST be the 
hub/router.

    Using Model A: 
The court can CHOOSE to be the hub/router or 
not.

 
 

Model A: without 
hub


  This is the model with which we are 
  generally familiar. 
   
  The court acts as a host for the 
  service-list and service messages are exchanged between FilingAssembly 
  applications and the serviceMDEs participating in the 
  system.
   
Model A: with 
hub(s)

  As host of the service-list, the 
  court can indicate to FilingAssembly applications that it will be 
  assigning the court-managed/hosted serviceMDE 'address' for all service-list 
  members.  In effect, the court is 
  'hard-coding' the service addresses, so that it can force itself (or some 
  delegate) to be 'the hub'.
   
  With that rule established, 
  the 'hub' can, in turn, choose:
   
  (1) to perform the service 
  functions directly with the intended users.
  This is not something they appear to 
  want to do, but some might.
   
  OR
   
  
  (2) pass the service calls to 
  the respective users' true serviceMDEs, 
   
   


How's 
that sound?
- Shane Durham
LexisNexis
 
 












[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]