Re: [ebxmlms-develop] UrlResolver questions

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body>
<blockquote type="cite"
 cite="mid...@s-...">
  <blockquote dir="ltr"
 style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
    <p><font size="2">Before UrlResolver, the physical recipient of a
message was   taken directly from the ToPartyId.</font> </p>
    <p><font size="2">With UrlResolver, the physical recipient is now
mapped using a   custom hook, with a default provided. However, since
the hook lives on the   server, it could be awkward in ASP usage for
clients to update this   mapping.</font></p>
    <p><font size="2">These two mechanisms were/are necessary because
there is no   way of telling send() what the physical recipient is. If
the client could use   send("<a href="http://" target="_blank">http://</a>...")
(in addition to   existing parameters), then the MSH could store the
URL with the outgoing   message, and no UrlResolver would be required.
The client could then maintain   their own physical recipient database.</font></p>
    <p><font size="2">Is this reasonable?</font></p>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
This resembles the toMshUrl parameter in Request constructor. I agree
that it is more flexible to specify the URL in send() instead of in
constructor. But our concept is one Request per CPA instance deployed
in Hermes. If this assumption holds, then we don't need that
flexibility and thus specifying in constructor is more convenient.
Though, for global sender, this is reasonable.<br>
<br>
Regards, -Patrick<br>
</body>
</html>