W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > February 2004

RE: WSDL and pub/sub

From: <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:26:29 -0800
Message-ID: <99F57F955F3EEF4DABA7C88CFA7EB45A0CB9999F@c1plenaexm04.commerceone.com>
To: <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
Cc: <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>, <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, <andyb@whyanbeel.net>, <steve@enigmatec.net>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

Farrukh

Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense. Here's another question as I am really trying to get my mind around this ...

Suppose, that you want to build an auction capability using the the following services, for example:
1. User Registration - registers a user
2. Auction Registration - records a registered user's interest in an auction
3. Bid Placement - a user that has registered an interest in an auction places a bid
4. Bid Notification - users that have registered an interest are notified of successful bids placed
4. Bid Result - the winner of the auction (if any) and other interested users are notified of the result of the auction
3. Winning Bid Payment - the winner of the auction pays, by credit card

Let's go further and assume that:
1. There are existing User Registration and Winning Bid Payment services that the operator of the auction wants to use
2. Bids are not automatically accepted, for example they must be higher than any previous bid and perhaps mulitples of $10, if that what the auction rule says
3. Users must be registered before they can bid.

This sounds to me to be more than what the ebXML Resistry was designed for.

So some more questions:
1. Could you sensibly use the pub/sub part of ebXML RR in the above example.
2. If you can, you still have the problem of defining how you combine the ebXML RR pub/sub protocol with other existing protocols to ensure that they occur in the correct sequence.

Don't misunderstand me, I do think that ebXML RR has great value in maintaining information about "static" objects, e.g. WSDL definitions, schemas, etc, I'm just not sure that it is the appropriate technology to use for this use case.

Thoughts

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 4:39 AM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: chiusano_joseph@bah.com; UCorda@SeeBeyond.com;
Monica.Martin@Sun.COM; andyb@whyanbeel.net; steve@enigmatec.net;
public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Re: WSDL and pub/sub


david.burdett@commerceone.com wrote:

>Monica, Joseph, Ugo et al
>
>A question. Just suppose you wanted to use the ebXML RR spec with other XML documents designed to support the Auction use case I described earlier, would there be any issues that you can think of. For example ... would you need to have an ebXML Registry to store information about Auction objects?
>  
>
David,

Funny you should mention an auction scenario and ebXML Registry. See a 
recent exchange below where I used the same scenario in the context of 
ebXML Registry event notification.

I feel that ebXML Registry event notification could be used to support 
multi-party collaboration scenarios as the next logical step from binary 
collaborations exemplified by ebXML Messaging and SOAP.

As it currently stands, registry events are only triggered when a 
CREATE/UPADTE/DELETE operation occurs
in the registry. For example a BiddableObject must be written to 
registry to represent that something is open for bids. Bidders would be 
subscribed to BiddableObjects and will be notified. They can then write 
Bid objects to the registry. The auctioneer would be subscribed to Bids 
for "their" BiddableObjects and will be notified when a Bid is placed. 
They would have to write a BidResult object to registry when bidding 
closes and all Bidders would be notified of the BidResult.

So yes several objects would have to be written to the registry in order 
to support this scenario.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh



-------- Original Message from Farrukh on regrep in reply to Joe  --------
Subject: 	Re: [regrep] Direct Data Exchange vs. SOA
Date: 	Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:50:12 -0500
From: 	Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
To: 	Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
CC: 	regrep@lists.oasis-open.org <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
References: 	<402A4C2C.C65CF5F1@bah.com>



Chiusano Joseph wrote:

>I have an inquiry that is not directly related to our mission here, but
>I hope to get some good insight in response please:
>
>Let's say we have a purchase order process between trading partners (PO
>sent, Invoice received). There are (for the purposes of this inquiry) 2
>possible ways to handle this process:
>
>(1) Direct Data Exchange (create XML documents based on a common schema,
>and exchange them between trading partners)
>
>(2) SOA (have a purchase order/invoice shared service that is discovered
>in a registry, etc.)
>
>My inquiry is: What would drive an organization to use one approach or
>the other, from both a business and technical standpoint? For instance,
>would "critical mass of services and/or trading partners" be a driver
>for SOA vs. direct data exchange?
>
>  
>
The second approach allows for multi-party colaboration instead of 
binary collaboration.
It would rely on Registry Event notification. An example would be a 
bidding or auction scenario.
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 12:27:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:51 GMT