ebxml-msg — archive

[System]

David, Instead, we should avoid re-defining SyncReply to mean "give me specific information from the To Party in the synchronous reply". The problem is how narrowly the CPP/A specification has interpreted this flag, not its existance. I didn't say SyncReplyMode is still about bundling, just that it has some of that legacy. Deciding what comes back in a synchronous reply remains interesting. It's also interesting to describe what will come back together in a later (asynchronous) response message since that message may not contain everything not bundled into the first one. Both bundles could occur for the same outgoing message. The second bundle should be considered later. thanx, doug --- David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> wrote: > Yes, SyncReply and Multihop don't work well together. As > shown in Arvola's example, SyncReply and RM also do not work > well together. > > The only place SyncReply might work well is for single-hop, > but SyncReply is only for Synchronous-Transports, but with > single-hop+Synchronous why would we ever send back > Asynchronously, in which case SyncReply is not needed. Why > again do we have this element? > > IMO, this should be an implementation detail. This is > really not about SyncReplyMode. As Doug pointed out, > SyncReplyMode is really a bundling attribute and need not be > about Synchronous Transport at all. > > Regards, > > David Fischer > Drummond Group. > > >