|David RR Webber (XML)||Apr 20, 2006 1:49 pm|
|Subject:||RE: [ebxml-bp] Re: First cut at a combination of two UBP process definitions|
|From:||David RR Webber (XML) (dav...@drrw.info)|
|Date:||Apr 20, 2006 1:49:06 pm|
Makes complete sense. This is an excellent use case for why we need "Linking and Switching" support in BPSS V3!
That's on our to-do list of course.
You have to have state management to figure out where you are - and if it fails what to do - and as you say - if you have succeeded already!
The way things stand - I think the 2.0.3 sets the scene nicely for us - and we've covered off where the gaps are and what will be worked on next (assuming Monica is still speaking to any of us - having got this far already!!!).
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ebxml-bp] Re: First cut at a combination of two UBP process definitions From: "Stephen Green" <step...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, April 20, 2006 4:16 pm To: "ebXML BP" <ebxm...@lists.oasis-open.org>
I have looked at a further example of a composition process definition and I tried first order with response followed by possible cancellation followed by despatch advice. The despatch advice didn't make sense as part of this process definition because whereas orders would have to be cancelled prior to despatch, the order cancellation comes from the buyer but the despatch advice from either seller or despatch office. Therefore I couldn't see a benefit of adding despatch advic to the process definition rather than just keeping it as a separate definition.
Then I was left with order and combining it with the definition for an order cancellation. Here again there are reasons it doesn't seem to benefit from combination of the two definitions into one. The only benefit is in saying that the order cancellation has to follow an acceptance order response (order response simple, to be precise), so it seems anyway. This baffled me a bit. The problem is there are so many possibilities to cater for which add complexity beyond the apparent benefit, even with this simple example. It's a question of what actually constitutes success if there is possibility of cancellation. The success is in creating the order if the reponse says the order is accepted but then what does cancellation mean - subsequent failure to create the order or success to cancel the order. Personally I'd just as soon keep the order cancellation as a separate process with its own success and failure criteria and just use prose order/sales conditions to add the complexities of business rules. Hence I'm afraid I dropped creating this example, leaving just the one I sent earlier with the Receipt Advice and Invoice since here the trigger factor made a bit of sense in the combination (though it would still necessitate significant over-simplification).
All the best
On 19/04/06, Stephen Green <step...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Monica, ebBP TC, > > I just completed a first cut at combining a receipt advice notification UBP > process definition with one for an invoice, to demonstrate (I hope, > please correct > if necessary) an invoice being triggered by a receipt advice (this can happen by > the way, but is for illustration of course). > > If I have time I'd like to show an order cancellation only allowed > after an order > has been given a successful 'order response simple' (with order accepted) > and not after a despatch advice. I just think I will need help with the latter, > more so as I haven't done much of a similar nature as yet. Plus I may not > have time before the end of the week and I guess Monica would like something > before then - so here is the simpler one in the meantime. > > All the best > > Steve > > >