← Prev in month ← Prev in thread
Next in thread → Next in month →

Are signals meaningful in case syncReplyMode is not set to none?

From
Arvola Chan <>
Date
2001-08-03T04:09:47+00:00
ID
01f601c11bd1$41138e40$
Thread
Are signals meaningful in case syncReplyMode is not set to none?
Whether response for a business process is to be 
returned synchronously is specified in the CPA rather than in the business 
process specification itself. This may lead to inconsistent specifications that 
can be rather meaningless.

 

Consider the case of a business process that calls 
for the use of both receipt acknowledgement and acceptance acknowledgement for 
the request activity. Let's say their corresponding timeouts are 5 minutes and 
10 minutes, and the time to perform is 30 minutes. Now suppose the CPA 
specifies syncReplyMode = signalsAndResponse, does it mean that both the signals 
and the response have to be returned within 5 minutes? If not, isn't the 
requesting party supposed to consider the transaction null and void due to not 
getting the receipt acknowledgement in time?

 

If the purpose of the receipt acknowledgement is to 
indicate that the request message has passed the intelligible check, and the 
purpose of the acceptance acknowledgement is to indicate that the request 
message has passed additional business rules validation, there isn't much of a 
point to return these signals along with the response synchronously (being 
packaged into the same ebXML message). The fact that the response is returned 
implies that both forms of validation have passed. Batching these signals with 
the response essentially make them redundant and worthless.

 

Among RosettaNet PIPs, 2A9 (Query Electronic 
Components Technical Information) is the only one that allows both synchronous 
and asynchronous response. In the case of synchronous response, time to perform 
is 5 minutes. For asynchronous response, time to perform is 24 hours. It does 
not seem possible to model PIP 2A9 using BPSS and CPP/A as a single business 
process specification. Only a single time to perform can be specified at the 
BPSS level. There is no mechanism at the CPP/A level to override the time to 
perform parameter.

 

In fact, I think it will be useful if time to 
acknowledge receipt, time to acknowledge acceptance, and time to perform for a 
business process specification can all be overridden at the CPP/A level to suit 
the performance requirements between the two trading partners.

 

-Arvola

 

Arvola Chan ()
TIBCO Software 
(on loan to RosettaNet)
+1-650-846-5046 (US-Pacific)
← Prev in month ← Prev in thread
Next in thread → Next in month →