OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

 View Only

Re: [ebxml-cppa] Re: [ebxml-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to dealwith ebMS permessage parameters

  • 1.  Re: [ebxml-cppa] Re: [ebxml-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to dealwith ebMS permessage parameters

    Posted 11-27-2001 09:20
    
    Arvola,
    
    I am having trouble understanding your suggestion.  If the two parties
    agree on "per message", there is no default.  Whatever is in the message
    header for a message controls.  If they agree on "yes" or on "no", that
    agreement is the default and applies to all messages.  The only other kind
    of default would be a default given in the schema for the case where
    AckRequested is missing from the CPA.  We certainly don't want to encourage
    side agreements that contradict the CPA or the schema.
    
    Regards,
    Marty
    
    *************************************************************************************
    
    Martin W. Sachs
    IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
    P. O. B. 704
    Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
    914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
    Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
    Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
    *************************************************************************************
    
    
    
    Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com> on 11/26/2001 04:23:53 PM
    
    To:    "PEDRETTIBRUCE (HP-NewJerseyex2)" <bruce_pedretti@hp.com>,
           ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org, ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
    cc:
    Subject:    [ebxml-cppa] Re: [ebxml-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to
           deal with ebMS permessage parameters
    
    
    
    
    Bruce:
    
    I was allowing for the fact that the two parties may have  agreed that a
    property like AckRequested is "perMessage" and still specify in  the CPA a
    bilaterally agreed default value (which can be different�from the  schema
    default) for the property should the sending application omit to specify  a
    value for this property.
    
    If such negotiated defaults are unnecessary, then I agree that  your
    suggested simplifications will be sufficient.
    
    Thanks,
    -Arvola