I tried to say that the element should be required in the message header. I
guess I mis-spoke there. However, if the element is not in the message
header, the CPA controls. If the CPA says "per message" and the element is
missing from the message header, it is a programming error and should not
be papered over by having a second level default. Similarly, if the CPA
says "yes" or "no" and the element is present in the message header, that's
also a programming error.
Since the program (rather, the middleware component that communicates with
the MSH) has to look for all kinds of things in the CPA, I fail to see why
this is any different.
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
*************************************************************************************
David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 11/27/2001 11:30:06 AM
To: Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, Martin W
Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "PEDRETTI,BRUCE (HP-NewJersey,ex2)"
<bruce_pedretti@hp.com>
cc: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to deal with ebMS
perMessage parameters
I'm not sure which side I am coming down on but I'm wondering, while
reading
this discussion, how we can make the element required/throw-an-error in one
case
(perMessage) while not allowing the element to appear in another case
(true|false). This means the program must look in the CPA to decide
whether it
should expect the element to appear? This sounds more difficult that it
should
be.
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.