OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

RE: [ebxml-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to deal with ebMS perMessage parameters

  • 1.  RE: [ebxml-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to deal with ebMS perMessage parameters

    Posted 11-27-2001 09:25 
    
Since there are really only 3 cases:  yes in CPA, no in CPA, per message, I
don't understand the need for a default in the message specification.
Given that the only usable values in the message are yes and  no, why
should the attribute be permitted to be left out?

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
*************************************************************************************



"PEDRETTI,BRUCE (HP-NewJersey,ex2)" <bruce_pedretti@hp.com> on 11/26/2001
06:07:05 PM

To:    "'Arvola Chan'" <arvola@tibco.com>, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:
Subject:    RE: [ebxml-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to deal with ebMS
       p    erMessage parameters




Arvola,

Thank you for helping me understand the issues.�This design is  elegant in
that you nicely cover the gambit with two�attributes, but  perhaps it is
difficult to understand because the "flag" attribute is  dual-purpose.
Sometimes "flag" provides a fixed value, sometimes it  provides a default.
This makes me a bit uneasy for two reasons: 1) if a  value is a default,
then for readability the attribute name ought to indicate  such (for
example, "perMessageDefault"); and 2) without annotated documentation,
this "dual-purpose" concept can not be expressed�in a  schema.

There are at least two other alternatives:

1) <DuplicateElimination inForce="perMessage"  perMessageDefault="false"/>
2) Use element presence for boolean conditions.� For  example:
��� a) if duplicate elimination false:  <DuplicateElimination> absent
��� b) if duplicate elimination true:  <DuplicationElimination> present
��� c) if duplicate elimination perMessage:  <DuplicateElimination
perMessageDefault="true"/>

All 3 seem to me to have pros and cons.� My preference is  for�alternative
(1).� My fellow hp developers prefer alternative  (2).� If you go with your
original proposal,�careful documentation may  be important.

Bruce


============================================
Bruce  Pedretti������ Hewlett-Packard Company
Software  Developer�� 6000 Irwin Road
(856)  638-6060������ Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
http://www.hp.com/
============================================


Related Content