Steve,
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!!!).
Cheers, DW
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
[ebxml-bp] Re: First cut at a combination of two UBP
process
definitions
From: "Stephen Green"
<>
Date: Thu, April 20, 2006 4:16
pm
To: "ebXML BP"
<>
Hi
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
Steve
On 19/04/06, Stephen Green
<> 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
>
>
>
