|Subject:||RE: [ebxml-cppa-btp] Proposed requirements on CPP/A for BTP|
|From:||Tony Fletcher (tony...@btopenworld.com)|
|Date:||May 23, 2002 12:02:42 pm|
doc00001.doc - 49k
Dear Arvola and other colleagues,
I think the answer to most of your points is ------- Yes!
BTP can be used between just two systems, but is arguably more useful when co-ordination (atomic or cohesive) is required between a number of systems.
Even so, I am not sure that multiparty collaboration needs to be explicitly supported. What I think is true is that a BTP enabled system may require at least two CPAs and often many more (see the scenarios in the updated requirements document). However, each CPA will be between just two systems.
Yes, I believe that BPSS should have explicit support (though this may turn out to be quite simple and straightforward) for beginning and terminating transactions and handling atomic or cohesive behaviour.
I attended the first part of the ebTWG meeting in Barcelona - which why I was unable to reply to this mail earlier - and presented on BTP to the business process folk there. Brian Hayes (who leads the BPSS team has agreed to draft a new charter to continue work on BPSS (headed to version 3.0), which will include consideration of BTP as one of its prime topics. So the answer to your point is yes indeed and we have started down the road - and you are all most welcome to join in!
Thanks for these thoughts. Prompted by them I have added four diagrams to the proposed draft requirements for CPP/A for BTP enabled systems. These show three scenarios or configurations of BTP enabled systems. If they are agreed then what they show is that even in the simplest case a system may require two CPPs (and two CPAs), one for its application plus BTP (CONTEXT and CONTEXT_REPLY messages in particular) protocol and another for the business transaction 'outcome' protocol. In the general case a system may require a whole set of CPPs and CPAs.
Best Regards Tony A M Fletcher Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219 tony...@choreology.com (Home: amfl...@iee.org) -----Original Message----- From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arv...@tibco.com] Sent: 15 May 2002 00:04 To: Tony Fletcher; ebXML CPP/A BTP List Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa-btp] Proposed requirements on CPP/A for BTP
I don't remember if multiparty collaboration is already included in the agenda for CPP/A 3.0, but it occurs to me that BTP cohesions and atoms may involve any number of participants.
Does the support of BTP in CPP/A 3.0 imply that multiparty collaboration must also be supported?
Also, will it be necessary to extend BPSS to describe the cohesion/atom behavor of collaborations? For example, will a multiparty collaboration have to identify the minimal subset of participants that must succeed before the cohesion can be considered successful? Does the OASIS BTP team have any plan to liaise with the ebtwg-bps team?
-----Original Message----- From: Tony Fletcher [mailto:tony...@btopenworld.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 12:52 PM To: ebXML CPP/A BTP List Subject: [ebxml-cppa-btp] Proposed requirements on CPP/A for BTP
I think this is the first mailing to this list for quite sometime - I hope it will not be the last and that we will be able to have a little discussion ahead of the June F2F and continue afterwards as we work towards a specification of some sort.
Please find attached an updated version of my proposed set of requirements for extensions to CPP/A to include BTP capable systems. I put it like that, because it is our current contention that there is actually very little to configure in BTP itself. It should all be driven off the role being played in the particular business process (and ideally even that would imply we are doing BTP or we are not!)
I am travelling over the next few days so I may be a little slow at replying, but I will try to reply to any responses - and I will certainly be reading posts to this list with interest even if there is no need for me to respond.