ebxml-msg — archive

[System]

Dan You raise a valid question as, I admit I have been one of the strongest advocates for "intermediary support". However I don't think it is a requirement that just applies to the likes of Commerce One and Ariba. The very common use case which I think will apply to many businesses is illustrated by the following diagram originally suggested by Chris Ferris: A -------------- BM ------ B1 ------- B MSH MSH MSH APP1 | -------- B2 ------- B MSH APP2 In this "point-to-point" use case there are two partys involved, Party A and Party B. Party B runs within their systems: the BM, B1 and B2 MSHs as well as B's APPs 1 and 2. The BM MSH is a "mailroom" MSH in that it forwards messages to another MSH (either B1 or B2) which then hands the message off to the application (either APP1 or APP2). The BM MSH does not "process" the message in a business sense as it does not look at the payload. In this example the BM MSH is an intermediary, yet, I would argue, A should not need to know that it is actually dealing with an intermediary. It should be transparent. This use case is why I think many of us will need to support intermediaries. Now for Commerce One. ONE of the (many) uses for ebXML that Commerce One has is illustrated by the diagram below: A -------------- C1 ------ D -------- D MSH MSH MSH APP | -------- E -------- E MSH APP Note that, as far as use of MSH's are concerned, this is IDENTICAL to the previous diagram except that Commerce One is providing the mailroom function rather than it being inside party B. Also links are made to many different parties (i.e. D & E), not just one (i.e. B). So, yes Commerce One NEEDS intermediary support, but then I think many of us will which is why it is important and needs to be included in a transparent way. Regards David