Constrain Transmission Wrapper
This page documents an INM Workitem, i.e. an issue within scope of the INM Committee that either is still being discussed, or the resolution of which has not yet been included in an INM ballot.
This page documents an Open MnM Hot Topic, i.e. a methodology issue requiring a resolution from Modeling and Methodology.
Issue
The current message and transmission layer seems to mix transmission and "how to interpret/process" information. Examples of the latter include:
- Message.profileId - Indicates how to validate the instance. Can influence receiver behavior
- Message.processingCode - Indicates how the instance is to be treated
- Message.processingModeCode - Indicates how the instance is to be treated
- Message.responseCode - Indicates the type of response desired at the application level
- Message.attachmentText - Contains information referenced by the message
- Transmission.responseModeCode - Indicates the type of response desired at the application level
- Transmission.versionCode - Indicates how to validate the interactions, allows confirmation of "can I process this?"
- Transmission.interactionId - Indicates how to validate the interaction, allows confirmation of "can I process this?" and determines receiver behavior
Possible solutions include:
1. Moving some/all of these attributes to ControlAct (which would actually have to be a deprecate and copy)
- Advantages - ControlAct is already understood and in place
- Disadvantages - This information relates to the Interaction, while ControlAct really Describes the trigger event. Also, ControlAct is used to convey history, where these attributes aren't terribly relevant
2. Adding an additional class to deal with this information. See Behavioral Contract Wrapper (new wrapper mechanism), which adds an Act to the current ControlAct wrapper.
- Advantages - Addresses disadvantages above
- Disadvantages - It adds yet another layer
Discussion
In application responses, it would make sense to include a link to the original controlAct, instead of including a reference to the orginal Transmission. (Tom de Jong, 20051113)
20060630 MnM discussion
- need a better explanation of why the layers should be separated
- Need to indicate what can be thrown away and what can't
- Need to indicate what can be changed when routing and what can't
- Better mapping to "standard" transports
- need to recognize that this "non-transport" information is routing related
- Ask INM and SOA to update this
- Defer future discussion until INM asks us to re-address
- Consider as an agenda item INM/MNM joint meeting Sept. 2006
