Re: [ebxmlms-general] idea : use ebXML to bridge the gap, through JMS

[Ronald v. K. <rv...@ab...>]

Patrick Yee wrote:

>
>> But isn't this abstraction exactely what hermes does with you 
>> allowing to implement your own messagelisteners? The only difference 
>> is that registering takes place via a http call rather then a config 
>> file or a gui
>>
> The registration can still take place via a http call in JMS case. I 
> think the use of http call or config file or gui is not a concern at all.

Yup

>
>>
>> So if you don't want to link the application to ebxml why do you want 
>> to link it to the postoffice? I'd like my client to link to a nice, 
>> clean and simple API. If JAXM was done right it would have fitted the 
>> ebxml messaging/transport layer quite well
>>
> Post office can be profiled. That means, post office can support 
> multiple underlying protocols, e.g. ebXML, RNIF, WS-Reliable 
> Messaging, etc. All the client need to master is a single set of APIs.

Just what JAXM liked to be (or at least likes to pretend to be ;-) ) I 
just wonder how much of the different underlying protocols can be hidden 
and still be general. If they start to differ to much I think it becomes 
to difficult.

>
>> We could go even further. It's not about a Business PostOffice, its 
>> about Business Processes. Let's give the J2EE specs a ebxml messaging 
>> protocol/api first and bother about the higher layers later.
>>
> We agree with the vision about business process. It's long. Whether or 
> not to make ebxml a part of J2EE specs is already a long way to go. I 
> would say it's no longer technical, but rather political. :-)
>
>> Last comment:
>> I do not want to sound like I disagree with you all, because on a lot 
>> of points I don't (at all!) but I get the feeling the "PostOffice" is 
>> a nice, clean api to a messaging system? Without the client having 
>> knowledge about the underlaying protocols, right?
>
>
> Yup. We need this kind of discussions to fuel the requirement of our 
> further development. Thank you.
>
I'm glad.. I was afraid to be banned from this list ;-)

Ronald