Shimamura-san,
I'd have to think about that. Since the acknowledgment is a SOAP
header, they can certainly be coresident in a message...
I certainly wouldn't do it this way. What do others think?
Cheers,
Chris
SHIMAMURA Masayoshi wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Thank you for showing intention of the deliveryReceipt. I have one
> question.
>
> In the Message Service spec V1.0, "10.3.3 Generating an Acknowledgement
> Message" on page 46 says:
>
> Depending on the value of the syncReply parameter, the
> Acknowledgement Message can also be sent at the same time as the
> response to the received message. ...
>
> It means that if syncReply is set to False, the Reliable Acknowledgement
> Message can not carry business level response. If so, at same time, the
> Reliable Acknowledgement Message can not carry deliveryReceipt element
> when syncReply is set to False. Because deliveryReceipt element is
> always carried together business level response.
>
> If the understanding above is correct, following description in the
> specification is wrong:
>
> 8.15 Combining ebXML SOAP Extension Elements
> ...
> 8.15.8 Delivery Receipt element
> A DeliveryReceipt element may be present on any message.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Actually, when syncReply is set to False, DeliveryReceipt element can
> not be present on Reliable Acknowledgement Message.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 00:58:29 -0400
> christopher ferris <> wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > I don't know what you're smoking. As for the history lesson, thanks,
> > but I was there.
> ...
> > The spec clarifies the distinction between the delivery receipt
> > and the acknowledgment in section 8.4.7.1. To wit:
> ...
> > Note: To clarify the distinction between an acknowledgement message
> > containing a DeliveryReceipt and a Reliable Messaging Acknowledgement:
> > (1) An acknowledgement message containing a Delivery Receipt
> > indicates the To Party has received the message. (2) The Reliable
> > Messaging Acknowledgment indicates a MSH, possibly only an
> > intermediate MSH, has received the message."
>
> I'd like to propose that we change the term "(1) acknowledgement message"
> into "(1) business level response". It seems to me that this is source
> of the confusing about DeliveryReceipt.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> SHIMAMURA Masayoshi <>
> TEL:+81-45-476-4590(ext.7128-4241) FAX:+81-45-476-4726(ext.7128-6783)
> Planning Dep., Strategic Planning Div., Software Group, FUJITSU LIMITED
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to:
