ebxml-msg — archive
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]
Re: [ebxml-msg] Arvola's SyncReply issues
MHonArc v2.5.2 -->ebxml-msg message
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Arvola's SyncReply issues
- From: Doug Bunting <[email protected]>
- To: ebXML Msg <[email protected]>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 13:10:14 -0800
Arvola,
I think you've hit upon an important point we need to clarify in your comments on (6) below. SyncReply should be meaningful with intermediaries between the From and To parties. It doesn't sound as if the CPP/A specification makes this allowance. I didn't think the MSH specification described only receiving synchronous responses from the To Party.
I'd recommend it be possible for the From Party to request the first set of MSH signals (errors or acknowledgments) from the "expected" party. That would support getting the acknowledgment back from the next MSH in the case you've described below. I'm not sure any changes are necessary in the MSH specification in support of this.
On point (12) below, don't forget the sender performing retries as another aspect of reliable messaging :-) Of course, "reliable messaging" is an overblown/generic term we've been avoiding in favour of better defined phrases like "once and only once" (meaning "once or get a good error to the sending application").
later,
doug
Arvola Chan wrote:
002d01c19400$64339ee0$[email protected]">Doug:Please see my comments inline.Regards,-Arvola
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] — [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Month Index] | [List Home]