This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Transformer Bridge"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Transformer Bridge''' is a role played by the [[Interface Engine]] that has no receiver responsibilities, is not addressed in the Transmission wrapper, and does not assign new Transmission IDs to transformed transmissions. This role should only be used in environments where there is an agreement of parties to use such a "transformer bridge", and that such agreement is likely to exist in intra-enterprise scenarios, whereas this is not likely in inter-enterprise environments. | '''Transformer Bridge''' is a role played by the [[Interface Engine]] that has no receiver responsibilities, is not addressed in the Transmission wrapper, and does not assign new Transmission IDs to transformed transmissions. This role should only be used in environments where there is an agreement of parties to use such a "transformer bridge", and that such agreement is likely to exist in intra-enterprise scenarios, whereas this is not likely in inter-enterprise environments. | ||
| + | *Discussion from Phoenix WGM (copy/paste from the minutes) - Mark Tucker - Existing V3 definitions do not support common uses of integration engines in the "real world." Integration engine typically does do minor changes to application data payload but does not accept receiver responsibility. Paul Biron echoes that sentiment. HL7 has no business telling implementers that they cannot do this. Rene Spronk: Aim is to create concepts that are useful. Is the ATS model broken because it does not support this use case? Paul: yes, certainly. It does not support real world use cases. Mark: suggest we could add a concept of "transforming router" that serves role defined above. Paul: Libertarian viewpoint: his institution owns the network, it can do whatever it wants. Rene: Can live with this with the caveat that language emphasizes this is intra-enterprise. Introduce this new concept of transforming router to ATS. | ||
Revision as of 12:51, 8 March 2006
Transformer Bridge is a role played by the Interface Engine that has no receiver responsibilities, is not addressed in the Transmission wrapper, and does not assign new Transmission IDs to transformed transmissions. This role should only be used in environments where there is an agreement of parties to use such a "transformer bridge", and that such agreement is likely to exist in intra-enterprise scenarios, whereas this is not likely in inter-enterprise environments.
- Discussion from Phoenix WGM (copy/paste from the minutes) - Mark Tucker - Existing V3 definitions do not support common uses of integration engines in the "real world." Integration engine typically does do minor changes to application data payload but does not accept receiver responsibility. Paul Biron echoes that sentiment. HL7 has no business telling implementers that they cannot do this. Rene Spronk: Aim is to create concepts that are useful. Is the ATS model broken because it does not support this use case? Paul: yes, certainly. It does not support real world use cases. Mark: suggest we could add a concept of "transforming router" that serves role defined above. Paul: Libertarian viewpoint: his institution owns the network, it can do whatever it wants. Rene: Can live with this with the caveat that language emphasizes this is intra-enterprise. Introduce this new concept of transforming router to ATS.
